Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

PRIVATE BILLS (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with).

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

London and North Eastern Railway (Road Transport, Scotland) Bill.

London, Midland, and Scottish Railway (Road Transport, Scotland) Bill.

Bills committed.

Barnet District Gas and Water Bill,

Sunderland Corporation Bill.

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

JUDICIAL AND EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONS (SEPARATION).

Mr. AMMON: 1.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the question of the separation of judicial from the executive functions in India is still being considered by His Majesty's Government and the Government of India; whether his attention has been drawn to the motion adopted by the Central Provinces Legislative Council recommending that immediate steps should be taken to give effect to this separation of functions and ordering the appropriation of Rs. 9,00,000 in this
connection; whether, in view of the fact that this question has been engaging the attention of His Majesty's Government and the Government of India for the past 80 or 90 years and schemes to give effect to this separation have been worked out by the Government, he will state whether a decision has now been arrived at by the Government on this question; and if he will give the names of the local governments whose failure to forward their proposals to the Government of India has contributed to the long delay?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. My Noble Friend is at present in correspondence with the Government of India on this matter, and it is probable that the Government of India will have occasion before long to explain the position as the result of the correspondence. At present, I am not able to make any further statement.

Mr. AMMON: Does the Noble Lord realise that a similar answer has been given for at least 90 years, and can he give a promise that something will be done before this century has passed?

Earl WINTERTON: The question is really a very thorny one, and I do admit that the period of gestation has been somewhat long. I hope that something will be brought forward before the end of the present century.

BACK BAY DEVELOPMENT SCHEME (INQUIRY).

Mr. WELLOCK (for Mr. LANSBURY): 2.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether it is the intention of the Bombay Government to appoint a committee to investigate the charges of corruption and incompetence recently levelled against certain officials; the terms of reference and the names of the committee; and will the committee be able to call witnesses and examine them on oath?

Earl WINTERTON: The Government of Bombay have appointed a committee to advise them regarding further steps in connection with Mr. Nariman's allegations or any other allegations of corruption in the Development Department.
My Noble Friend has not yet received a complete list of the members of the committee, but it includes Mr. Nariman and four other elected members of the Legislative Council. The information so far received does not enable me to answer the last part of the question.

EDUCATION FUND (GIRLS).

Mr. WELLOCK: 3.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India if the education fund controlled by the law member of the Government of India is a private fund; and whether any portion of it is to be used for the education of Indian girls?

Earl WINTERTON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, I have no official information, but from statements in the Press I understand that the money has been raised for the purpose of founding a residential school for boys.

EDUCATION GRANTS, BENGAL AND PUNJAB.

Mr. WELLOCK: 5.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the Governor of Bengal stated in a university convocation speech recently that if students participated in hartals he would refuse to give any funds to the university; that the Punjab Ministry of Education recently issued a circular to the effect that grants would be withdrawn from a school without notice if the manager or any member of the managing committee or any of the teachers employed in the school take part in political propaganda or agitation directed against the authority of government or disseminate opinions tending to excite feelings of disloyalty or disaffection against Government or of enmity, and enmity against any section or sections of His Majesty's subjects; and whether, as these declarations indicate a change of policy, he will say if they were authorised by the Government of India?

Earl WINTERTON: Educational policy, being a transferred subject, is not liable to control by the Government of India. My Noble Friend is not, therefore, prepared to make any comment upon any course of action which provincial Governments feel it is desirable to take in the interests of good order and decency in educational establishments over which they exercise full or partial control. I may add that the hon. Member does not
appear to have summarised accurately the speech of the Governor of Bengal at the annual convocation of Calcutta University.

WOMEN'S EDUCATION.

Mr. WELLOCK: 6.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the All-India women's education conference, held in Delhi last month, resolved to raise an all-India fund for the promotion of women's education; and whether he can say if the Government of India propose to assist this fund?

Earl WINTERTON: I have no official information, but the Press reports of the proceedings of the All-India Women's Conference on Educational Reform held at Delhi last month which I have seen contain no mention of such a fund.

DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR MILITARY ESCORTS, PERSIA.

Mr. MAXTON: 10.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether detachments of Indian cavalry regiments are maintained in Persia as diplomatic and consular escorts; what is the annual cost of the maintenance of these escorts; and whether the question of their withdrawal from Persia is under consideration?

Earl WINTERTON: The answer to the first and third parts of the question is in the affirmative. The actual expenditure on these escorts for the last year for which figures are available (1925–1926) was approximately Rs.1½ lakhs (say, £11,250).

LOAN (INDIAN SUBSCRIBERS).

Mr. JOHN BAKER: 11.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India how many applications for subscription were received from India for the sterling loan recently issued by the Secretary of State; and whether he will state the total amount allotted to those applicants?

Earl WINTERTON: Facilities were provided, as on previous occasions, for applications from India to be made through the Imperial Bank of India. Eighteen such applications were received and £194,150 was allotted in respect of them. Apart from the above, some of the applications put in by banks and others in London may have been made on behalf of persons in India; but there is no means of estimating the total.

JUVENILE POPULATION.

Mr. DAY: 13.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India the number of males and females under the age of 14 years resident in British India at the last convenient date?

Earl WINTERTON: The total number of males and females under the age of 15 in British India according to the 1921 Census was: Males, 49,437,186; females, 46,336,541. Figures for persons under the age of 14 years are not available.

MINES (EMPLOYéS).

Mr. DAY: 14.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India the number of persons, and their respective sex, employed in the mines in British India at the last convenient date, stating, as near as possible, their ages?

Earl WINTERTON: The average daily number of persons employed in and about the mines in 1926 was 260,113, of whom 181,616 were male and 78,497 female. Information as to ages is not available.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Can the Noble Lord say how many of these 78,000 women are still working underground?

Earl WINTERTON: If the hon. and gallant Member wants information as to the conditions, perhaps he will put a question on the Paper. I have answered questions on the subject, but I cannot carry the details in my mind.

COMMONWEALTH TRUST, LIMITED.

Major OWEN: 7.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, seeing that the Commonwealth Trust has been in existence for more than seven years, he can state what is the total amount of surplus profits transferred by the directors of this trust to the trustees for the purposes of education in India?

Earl WINTERTON: I understand that the shareholders of the Commonwealth Trust, Limited, resolved at their general meeting on 13th December, 1927, that out of the profits of the financial year ended 30th June, 1927, a sum of £2,500 should be paid, by way of anticipation of future surplus profits, to the Commonwealth Welfare and Education Trustees for application to the purposes of the trust in India.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the Noble Lord aware that there have been no surplus profits in this concern?

Earl WINTERTON: I think I have answered the question. They have set apart this sum of money in anticipation of future surplus profits?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Up to the present there have been no surplus profits.

Mr. KELLY: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Secretary of State, during September, 1925, informed the directors of the Commonwealth Trust that they contemplated the restoration of the sequestrated properties to the Basle Mission?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Amery): The reply to the hon. Member's question is that the directors of the Commonwealth Trust Limited were informed by letter in September, 1925, that I had had under consideration the future of the Commonwealth Trust Limited in so far as its works in the Gold Coast were concerned, and that I had come to the conclusion that it would be desirable that the Trust should cease to operate in the Gold Coast and that the former properties of the Basle Mission Trading Society held by the Trust should be returned to the Local Board of Trustees.

Mr. KELLY: 22 and 23.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether, seeing that under the trust deed of the Commonwealth Trust provision is only made for the payment to Christian missions out of surplus profits, the payment to missions in India of sums of money out of the assets of the trust was ever disclosed to the trustees or to the shareholders of the company;
(2) the amount of money advanced to Christian missions in India by the Commonwealth Trust Limited; and whether, seeing that at the time these advances were made the Commonwealth Trust was losing large sums of money, his sanction was sought before these advances from capital resources were made by the directors of the trust?

Mr. AMERY: I have had no report from the Commonwealth Trust Limited of any payment of Christian missions in India with the exception of a payment
of £2,500 which it is proposed to make now in anticipation of surplus profits, and I am in correspondence with the Trust on this matter.

Major OWEN: 29.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, seeing that the Commonwealth Trust has been in existence for more than seven years, he can state what is the total amount of surplus profits transferred by the directors of this trust to the trustees for the purposes of education in the Colony of the Gold Coast?

Mr. AMERY: No surplus profits have yet been earned by the Commonwealth Trust, and no payments have therefore been made to the trustees for the purpose of education in the Gold Coast.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I ask why the missionaries in India should have some of these surplus profits and the Colony of the Gold Coast none?

Mr. AMERY: I have answered that in my reply.

Major OWEN: 30.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, seeing that the capital of the Commonwealth Trust is £50,000, and that by the admission of the directors of the company their trading losses during the period of its existence exceed £350,000, he was at any time consulted by the directors as to the steps to be taken to meet these losses; and whether any and, if so, what official advice was given to the directors?

Mr. AMERY: Yes, Sir. In a letter of the 4th of December, 1923, the Commonwealth Trust drew attention to the trading losses that had been incurred and indicated various alternative courses of action which might be adopted in the circumstances. One of these courses was the return of their properties to the Basle Mission Trading Society, upon full provision being made for securing the rights of the creditors of the Commonwealth Trust and for repaying to the shareholders the amounts paid upon their shares together with all arrears of dividends. Advice in this sense was subsequently given to the Commonwealth Trust, but no agreement was reached, and the situation of the Trust has since shown substantial improvement. I ought, perhaps, to add that most companies trading
in West Africa over the period in question had also made considerable losses.

Mr. WALTER BAKER: 24.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, seeing that the directors of the Commonwealth Trust propose paying £2,500 out of profits not yet earned to Christian missions in India, whereas any surplus profits are divisible between India and the Gold Coast, according to the areas in which profits are earned, he will say whether his sanction has been sought for this action?

Mr. AMERY: No, Sir; my sanction was not sought for this action and I have protested to the Trust on the ground that their proposal conflicts with the provisions of the supplemental Trust Deed of December, 1919.

Mr. BAKER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what steps he is taking in view of that statement?

Mr. AMERY: The steps indicated in my answer.

Mr. W. BAKER: 25.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the statement made at the annual meeting of the Commonwealth Trust that schemes were being advanced for a change in the management of this Trust which would mean instantly depriving the employés of their livelihood; and whether he can make a statement about the intentions of the Government with regard to the liquidation of the Commonwealth Trust?

Mr. AMERY: My attention has been drawn to a notice issued on the 8th of March to the shareholders of the Company calling an Extraordinary General Meeting for the 27th of March, which contains the statement to which the hon. Member appears to refer. It is the intention of the Government, subject to conditions which are under consideration, to resume possession of the properties in the Gold Coast formerly belonging to the Basle Mission Trading Society and now held by the Commonwealth Trust. The position of the employés of the Trust is a factor in the situation which would obviously have to be taken into account.

Mr. BAKER: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the difficulty
with regard to this trust is the desire of the directors to secure compensation in respect of the directors' fees

Mr. AMERY: No, I would not say that at all. The whole case is a difficult one. The directors of the trust are public-spirited individuals who have carried on the trust for many years on public grounds.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Why is it that the "Times" is taking up such a line of antagonism to the Colonial Office in this matter?

Mr. SPEAKER: The Minister does not control the newspapers.

WEST AFRICAN COLONIES (CONCESSIONS).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the action of certain ex-governors of West African Colonies in obtaining diamond concessions in the Gold Coast Colony; is he aware that two of these ex-governors have since visited the West African Colonies and have, in addition, secured concessions for the exploitation of platinum in the Colony and/or Protectorate of Sierra Leone; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter?

Mr. AMERY: I am aware that two ex-governors of the Gambia are directors of a Gold Coast diamond company and have recently visited the Gold Coast to inspect the company's concession. I am also aware that the company has secured prospecting rights over a platinum area in Sierra Leone. None of the directors of the company was ever an official in Sierra Leone. One director, an ex-governor of the Gambia, was formerly an official in the Gold Coast, and he has, in accordance with the local Pension Law, obtained the governor's sanction to his directorship. I see no grounds for taking any action in the matter.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the activities of ex-governors and officials on the West Coast have the approval of the Colonial Office, or whether the right hon. Gentleman will discourage officials from taking on directorships of companies
directly dealing with concessions in the Colonies to which they belonged?

Mr. AMERY: It is obviously undesirable that governors and officials should undertake commercial activities immediately after they have ceased from holding office; in any case where there is any danger of their action while in office being influenced by the possibility of subsequent commercial activities; but, where a long period of years intervenes, it is obviously absurd to apply any limitations on governors or other officials in this respect.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: In the case of tin in Nigeria, do the Government receive royalties?

Mr. AMERY: I should require notice of that question.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it puts the officials who do not take up appointments of this sort, on principle, in a very unpleasant position, when their colleagues do take up such positions? Is it not affecting directly the status and character of his Colonial Service?

Mr. AMERY: I am aware of no official who 10, 15 or 20 years after leaving the Colony, declines interest in its affairs as a matter of principle.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 32.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the concession granted to Sir Henry Galway, late governor of the Gambia, to prospect for platinum in Sierra Leone was an exclusive right, and was granted in return for a payment or on terms which have his approval?

Mr. AMERY: The right to prospect for platinum granted to Alluvial Diamonds (Gold Coast) Limited, is not exclusive Similar rights have been granted to a number of applicants. The fee for a prospecting right is £5 and the terms on which such rights are granted are laid down in the Sierra Leone Minerals Ordinance.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Then I understand that anyone can obtain a concession to prospect for platinum in Sierra Leone in addition to Sir Henry Galway?

Mr. AMERY: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRAQ.

WAHABI RAIDS.

Captain EDEN: 27.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give any further information as to raids by Wahabi tribesmen into the territory of Iraq?

Mr. AMERY: I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. and gallant Member for Hull, Central (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) on the 8th of March. I should like to take the opportunity to correct a statement that has appeared in the Press to the effect that troops have been sent from India to Koweit in connection with the difficulties with the Akhwan. There is not a word of truth in the statement. I would add that I have no official confirmation of the report that King Ibn Saud has declared a "Holy War" or has identified himself in any way with such a movement.

Captain EDEN: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been drawn to the sensational reports which have appeared in some newspapers? May we regard them as unduly alarmist?

Mr. AMERY: Yes. I think you may.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Has the right hon. Gentleman any means of contact with Ibn Saud, or any means of communication with him, directly?

Mr. AMERY: Yes, Sir. We communicate either through the British agent at Jeddah or the British political resident in the Persian Gulf, or through Ibn Saud's agent in Cairo; but the communication is not always very rapid.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider sending a representative to the Court of Ibn Saud?

Mr. AMERY: There is a question on that point, and in the answer I make it clear that we have considered the question.

KING IBN SAUD.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 54.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the total sum which has been paid by the British Government to Ibn Saud, King of the Hejaz and Sultan of Nejd; and what were the terms and conditions attached to such payments?

Mr. AMERY: I have been asked to reply to this question. The total cost to the British Government of the subsidies paid to King Ibn Saud during the years 1917 to 1923 was approximately £542,000. No subsidy whatever was paid before the year 1917 or after the year 1923. The subsidy was given in the first instance in consideration of assistance in the war against Turkey. The later payments were made subject to the following conditions, namely:

(i) That Ibn Saud refrained and restrained his adherents from aggressive action against the Hejaz, Koweit and Iraq;
(ii) that he afforded co-operation in the matter of the Haj by maintaining the safety of pilgrim routes to his territory;
(iii) that he consented to be guided generally by the wishes of His Majesty's Government in regard to his foreign policy and to co-operate with them in promoting their own policy which had for its object the maintenance of peaceful conditions in Arab countries and the promotion of the economic interests of both parties.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is there no provision for repayment of part of this enormous sum of money in the event of the conditions of the agreement not being kept?

Mr. AMERY: I am afraid that my hon. Friend has not entirely understood my answer. No subsidy is being paid now. It was paid during the War and for a short period after the War, during which time the conditions were kept.

Mr. CRAWFURD: Arising out of the right hon. Gentleman's first answer, can he give the House any information as to the proportion of this £542,000 which has been expended in the purchase of arms from this country, and now being used in Iraq?

Mr. AMERY: No, Sir; I doubt whether I could. If the hon. and gallant Member will put a question on the Paper I will see, but I doubt whether I could retrospectively ascertain that fact.

Lord APSLEY: Was the subsidy paid in gold or in paper?

Mr. AMERY: I require notice of that question.

Mr. NOEL BUXTON: 55.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the evidence that Ibn Saud is directly responsible for the invasion of Iraq is conclusive; and whether attempts to get in touch with Ibn Saud and ascertain the grievances which have occasioned the invasion have been successful?

Mr. AMERY: There is no evidence that Ibn Saud was directly responsible for the recent raids by Akhwan tribes into Iraq territory which, however, it would be scarcely correct to describe as an invasion. As regards the second part of the question His Majesty's Government have been in frequent communication with King Ibn Saud. As long ago as last December they suggested that a meeting should be arranged at a convenient spot between His Majesty and the British Resident in the Persian Gulf to discuss any matter in dispute. That suggestion has been repeated several times since, but the King has not so far seen fit to avail himself of the opportunity offered him for a full discussion of outstanding questions.

Mr. BUXTON: Is diplomatic contact chiefly maintained at Bagdad or Cairo?

Mr. AMERY: No, Sir. It is maintained chiefly at Ibn Saud's own headquarters, and there are also opportunities of diplomatic contact at Cairo and at Jeddah.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Wahabi declare that the first raids came from our side of the frontier, and will he have the matter investigated; and is he also aware that this is the national sport of the tribes in that part of the world and their only sport—to raid each other?

Mr. AMERY: I would be the last to interfere with their sport in their own territory. I have made the investigation which the hon. and gallant Member would like me to make, and the result does not confirm the view that the raids were begun on the Iraq side of the frontier.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Six of one and half-a-dozen of the other!

Mr. TREVELYAN: 56.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has been in negotiation with Ibn Saud
as to the sources of the threatened hostilities on the Iraq frontier; and, if so, whether he can give any information as to such negotiations?

Mr. AMERY: I have nothing to add to the reply which I have just made to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Buxton) and to my replies to the hon. and gallant Member for Chippenham (Captain Cazalet) on the 29th February and to the hon. Member for Southwark, Central (Mr. Day) on the 5th March.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 57.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, at the time the British plenipotentiary negotiated the treaty with Ibn Saud, the King of the Hejaz, he was instructed to intimate that, providing His Majesty, Ibn Saud, desired to purchase arms and ammunition from the manufacturers of this country, His Majesty's Government would make no objection to his doing so?

Mr. AMERY: I would refer the hon. and gallant Gentleman to the Paper presented to Parliament last year (Cmd. 2951). He will find on page 6 of this Paper the text of the Note which Sir G. Clayton addressed to the King of the Hejaz, by the instructions of His Majesty's Government, in regard to the supply of arms and ammunition from this country.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are we still bound by that note, and does that mean that we can put no obstacle in his way as to the purchase of arms here?

Mr. AMERY: No, Sir. If there is any evidence of arms supplied being used against us, we can very properly and rightly complain.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman in future discourage our negotiators from inserting such clauses in treaties for the sake of the commercial dealers in munitions in this country? It is absolutely disgraceful to wait until our men are shot down.

DEAD SEA SALTS (CONCESSION).

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 28.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the estimated value of the potash and bromide deposits in the Dead Sea salts concession?

Mr. AMERY: I am quite unable to give any figure as to the estimated value of the potash salts and bromides in the Dead Sea. It has been estimated that the waters of that sea contain some 2,000 million metric tons of potassium chloride and 980 million metric tons of magnesium bromide, but the possible value of these salts in the Dead Sea must depend upon various factors, such as the cost of production and transport and the price at which the products could be sold in world markets.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Did not the Report of the Government Commission in 1923 say that there was sufficient potash there to export 1,000,000 tons a year for the next 2,000 years?

Mr. AMERY: I do not know, but in the Dead Sea, as in the ocean itself, there are unlimited quantities of valuable materials which may not be easy to extract at a profit.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Has M. Novomeysky the right qualifications for extracting this salt?

GIBRALTAR (COALHEAVERS' DISPUTE).

Mr. W. M. ADAMSON: 31
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether any approach has been made to the Government representatives at Gibraltar for a reduction in the port or other duties of the harbour by the importers and exporters of coal; if such request has been sanctioned or refused; and whether it has affected the present coalheavers' dispute;
(2) what number of Moors were brought to Gibraltar during the recent dispute in in the coaling industry; and if approval was given to relax the rule under which permits are necessary for those working or living in Gibraltar;
(3) whether he is aware of the coal-heavers' dispute at Gibraltar; how long it has been in operation, the amount of reduction sought by the employers, if any efforts have been made to bring about a settlement or if either side have requested arbitration, or if any of the Government representatives have been advised to use their influence for a friendly settlement?

Mr. DUNCAN: 34.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is
aware of the present methods employed in the setting on of men engaged as coalheavers at Gibraltar; and whether he will make inquiry into the question with a view to instituting the brass-check system, with a view to the decasualising of labour, on the same lines as are in operation at various large ports in this country?

Mr. AMERY: The coalheavers and trimmers employed by the Gibraltar coal merchants have been on strike since the 1st February as the result of a proposed reduction in wages, the amount of which I am not able to state. The employers have imported Moorish labour. I cannot say in what numbers nor whether the Colonial Government have been asked to relax any rules for this purpose. The Colonial Secretary of Gibraltar has taken an active part as intermediary between the employers and men. I regret that the information at my disposal does not enable me to deal with the other points raised in the questions, but I am asking the Governor for a full Report, and in doing so will draw his attention to the suggestion made in the question asked by the hon. Member for Clay Cross (Mr. Duncan).

EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.

Mr. DAY: 33.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the number of persons that have received any assistance to passage overseas during the 12 months ended to the last convenient date?

Mr. AMERY: The total number of persons who were granted assisted passages under the Empire Settlement Act, 1922, during the year ending 31st December, 1927, was 63,027.

Mr. MAXTON: Are there any other methods of providing assistance except under the Empire Settlement Act?

Mr. AMERY: Not by the Government.

Mr. HANNON: 38.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (1) whether he has prepared, and if he proposes to publish, any official Report or summary of his impressions arising out of his recent tour of the British Empire; and, if so, whether he can make arrangements that such Report shall be available at a popular price:
(2) whether, following upon his recent tour of British Dominions and Dependencies overseas, he has formulated any proposals for the extension of schemes of Empire settlement; and, if so, when he will be in a position to submit an outline of such schemes to the House?

Mr. AMERY: Briefly stated, the objects which I had in view in making my recent visit to the Dominions were to renew, at a period midway between two Imperial Conferences, the personal contact between his Majesty's Ministers here and in the Dominions which is not the least valuable feature of those Conferences, to inform myself by personal observation and discussion as to opinion in other parts of the Empire on matters of inter-Imperial concern, and to deal, by means of personal consultation with the members of the various Governments and others concerned, with any outstanding matters of current business in which it appeared that such consultation might lead to a more expeditious decision than would otherwise be achieved. Naturally migration was one of the matters of inter-Imperial concern to which I have referred and I was able to give the House some information regarding my discussions on this subject in the course of the Debate on the Empire Settlement Bill on 24th February last, but it was not my intention, nor, in my opinion would it have been desirable in the time available, to formulate detailed schemes or to attempt anything more than a general exchange of views. In these circumstances I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by the publication of a Report either on migration or more generally on the tour as a whole.

Mr. HANNON: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider writing a short individual report of his impressions as he toured through Canada, Australia and New Zealand?

Mr. AMERY: We shall have opportunities of debate which will enable me to deal with questions of inter-Imperial concern.

Colonel CROOKSHANK: Did the right hon. Gentleman see the interesting article in the "Times" under the signature "Odysseus"?

Mr. COUPER: 40.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs the results of his conversations with Dominion authorities during his recent tour on the subject of migration; and how many migrants it is hoped to send to the Dominions during the present year under existing and projected schemes.

Mr. AMERY: The answer to the first part of this question is contained in the reply just given to my hon. Friend the Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon). With regard to the second part, it does not appear likely that there will be an increase during 1928 in the number of persons assisted to proceed overseas under the Empire Settlement Act. The numbers of assisted migrants during the years 1926 and 1927 were 66,103 and 63,027 respectively.

Mr. COUPER: In any scheme which is arranged, is it to be on the fifty-fifty basis as formerly?

Mr. AMERY: The general basis has not been changed.

Mr. COUPER: If no scheme has been formed, is it because of any financial considerations which have arisen?

Mr. AMERY: No. It is not because of any financial considerations at this end. There are economic conditions in the Dominions which to some extent retard the development of our schemes.

Mr. LUMLEY: 42.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if any fresh agreement has been made with His Majesty's Canadian Government for the settlement of families in Canada; and, if so, whether he can give the details of the agreement?

Mr. AMERY: Under the 3,000 Families Scheme a further 350 families are to be settled during 1928, and it is proposed to settle 500 additional families during 1929. The Provincial Governments of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have also entered into agreements on a similar basis for the settlement on farms in each province of 500 families during the next six years. A scheme for a pioneer settlement is also under consideration. This scheme, which would be brought into operation in 1929, would deal with about 2,000 families, but details have not yet been arranged.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRISH FREE STATE.

EX-BRITISH CIVIL SERVANTS.

Sir W. DAVISON: 37.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs when it is proposed to introduce the legislation necessary to declare what are the benefits proposed to be given to Irish civil servants in lieu of those to which they have been held by the Privy Council to be entitled in the recent case of Wigg and another versus the Attorney-General?

Mr. AMERY: I would ask my hon. Friend to await the reply which the Prime Minister will give to a similar question.

Sir W. DAVISON: 41.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether his attention has been called to the express guarantees given on behalf of the British Government to British civil servants in Ireland that their rights, as provided for in Article 10 of the Treaty, would be secured in full; and whether such guarantees will be implemented?

Mr. AMERY: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Colonel Howard-Bury) on the 1st March.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the express guarantee given in 1922, in the month of May, by Lord Peel on behalf of the British Government, when he said that if the Free State Government failed in carrying out their obligations under Article 10 of the Treaty the British Government would guarantee these rights to the Irish Free State?

Mr. AMERY: The Prime Minister is dealing with this point in answer to a later question.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 45.
asked the Prime Minister (1) whether, in view of the Government's announcement with regard to the change in Article 10 of the Irish Treaty, it is proposed to introduce legislation to sanction this new position;
(2) whether, in view of the recent agreement between the Irish Free State Government and the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, whereby the judgment
of the Privy Council has been overruled, and in view of the fact that the British Government is departing from the agreement arrived at by the Imperial Conference that no immediate change was to be made in the matter of appeals to the Privy Council, and in view of the fact that this decision of the Government will affect all Dominion Governments throughout the Empire, and will raise an issue that goes to the root of imperial citizenship, he will give a day to discuss this question?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): If it is the general desire, the Government will provide an opportunity for discussion of the whole matter as soon as circumstances permit, and will themselves take that opportunity of presenting a comprehensive statement to the House of the reasons which have led to their decision. I hope that in these circumstances my hon. and gallant Friend will not press me to deal with the matter by way of Question and Answer.

Sir BASIL PETO: Can my right hon. Friend say that no definite steps will be taken to implement the decision which, he says, has been arrived at by the Government, until after the Debate in this House?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am not aware of any definite steps that can be taken prior to the introduction of legislation, and it is obvious that discussion must precede that legislation.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the question I addressed to the Secretary of State for the Dominions as to a definite and express pledge given by Lord Peel and the Lord Chancellor, that if the Free State failed in this matter the British Government would guarantee Irish civil servants their rights under Article 10 of the Treaty?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is exactly one of the points for discussion in the Debate.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

MILAN FAIR (BRITISH PAVILION).

Sir ALEXANDER SPROT: 43.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas. Trade Department if he is aware that in the Government sports exhibit at the Milan
Industries Fair the Department was labelled Inghilterra, although it contained goods evidently of Scottish manufacture; and if he will take steps to substitute Made in Britain, or Great Britain, for Made in England in such cases, and instruct British Consuls and others as to the proper naming of goods and Departments at exhibitions abroad?

Mr. DOUGLAS HACKING (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The official description of the British Pavilion at the Milan Fair is the "Padiglione Britannico," and it was so named in a descriptive booklet prepared and issued by my Department, a copy of which I am sending to my hon. Friend. Records in the Department do not show whether the display of sports goods in the Pavilion last year was labelled "Inghilterra," but I will gladly give instructions that the point raised by my hon. Friend should be noted for the future. As my hon. Friend is aware, the terms Britain and England are often used as synonymous by foreigners who are unaware that Scotland is the predominant partner.

ANGLO-GERMAN COMMERCIAL TREATY.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: 58.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has had any representations from the German Government with regard to the British tariff policy in its relation to the trade treaty; and, in view of the importance of British exports to Germany, what steps he proposes to take in the matter?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Austen Chamberlain): Since the Anglo-German Commercial Treaty was signed, His Majesty's Government have from time to time been informed that the German Government regard particular British duties as being inconsistent with the terms of that Treaty or of the Protocol annexed thereto, but this view of them is not accepted by His Majesty's Government.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Is it a fact that the German Government will have the power to get rid of this treaty in a comparatively short time hence?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I understand that the German Government stated the other day that they proposed to give notice to terminate it.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that is of considerable importance to British trade?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: If notice is given to terminate this treaty, we may negotiate another. We must reserve certain liberty, and not unduly tie our hands as to what our own fiscal arrangements may be.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware if, among all the nations affiliated to Geneva, any headway is being made in regard to the free exchange of all commodities?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. The idea of abolishing all duties has never entered into the mind of any man at Geneva as a practical proposition. Very few countries have so few duties as we have.

FOREIGN MOTOR CARS (BRITISH MANUFACTURE).

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: 61.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of persons who will be employed in the motor car and tyre factories which foreign countries have decided to erect in this country?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Herbert Williams): I understand from the public announcements that have been made that the motor car and tyre factories which have recently been, or are about to be, erected by firms with foreign interests are expected to give employment to some 13,000 people.

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: What proportion of that number is employed in the subsidiary industries—building and other trades?

Mr. WILLIAMS: I am afraid I could not answer that question without notice.

Sir H. CROFT: Does not this remarkable result tend to prove that foreigners are of opinion that these duties are paid by the importer?

GRAMOPHONE INDUSTRY.

Sir H. CROFT: 62.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many persons were employed in the gramophone industry in 1924 and 1927, respectively?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): As explained in the reply given to my hon. and gallant Friend on 14th February, I have no statistics on this subject and I am informed by my right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade, that he is unable to supply the information desired.

Sir H. CROFT: In view of the fact that the gramophone industry, which is now a very great one, is booming at the moment, could not the hon. Gentleman ascertain from the five or six firms the number of persons employed?

Mr. BETTERTON: The reason why it is difficult to give any specific answer to the question as framed, is because employment in this trade is spread over at least three industrial groups. For instance, there is the musical instruments group; then there is the general engineering group which includes gramophone motors, and then there is the "other metals" group which includes gramophone parts.

Sir H. CROFT: Is it not time that the Government took credit for the remarkable success of these duties?

Mr. R. MORRISON: Is it not the case that in the piano trade, which is in the same class of industries, the unemployment was greater last year than it has been for many a long year?

Mr. CAMPBELL: And is not the piano trade in that state because there is more machinery used.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

COMPENSATION CLAIM, SURREY.

Mr. FENBY: 44.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that a tenant of the Surrey County Council who relinquished his farm holding last Michaelmas and claimed compensation for improvements effected by him was kept waiting for five months before his claim was investigated; that four independent referees nominated by him were refused by the county council, and that the referee ultimately appointed by the Minister was the estate agent employed by the council for the letting of the farm in question; that the inquiry into the tenant's claim was carried out on a date on which he had been assured by the
referee it would not take place, so that he was unable to lay before it evidence essential for the proper statement of his case; and whether, in view of these circumstances, he will cause the question to be further investigated with a view to ensuring an equitable settlement of the compensation claim?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): As the reply is long, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. FENBY: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me whether he is satisfied with the arrangements made in regard to this arbitrator?

Mr. GUINNESS: The hon. Member knows that since March, 1926, local authorities have had full control over these small holdings, but the details I have given in my answer will, I am sure, satisfy him that this referee was appointed in the ordinary way and that he is in no sense responsible as agent or otherwise for the letting of the holding.

Following is the reply.

With regard to the first part of the hon. Member's question, I would remind him that since the 31st March, 1926, county councils have been given complete responsibility for the management of their estates, and it would not be practicable or desirable for me to attempt to intervene in any matter between a council and its tenant. I received an application on the 31st December last to appoint an arbitrator in the case of Boundary Farm, Banstead, which is presumably the case to which the hon. Member refers. After notice had been given to the tenant and the proposed arbitrator had signified his willingness to act, the appointment was made 19 days after the receipt of the application, and I am satisfied that there was no unreasonable delay on the part of the Ministry. The arbitrator appointed was a local valuer selected from the Panel formed by the Lord Chief Justice under the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923.

Before making the appointment the Ministry received from the arbitrator the usual declaration that he was not connected with either of the parties to the reference. I am informed that the Surrey County Council in July last sent particulars
of the holding, which was becoming vacant at Michaelmas, to three firms of agricultural estate agents in the county, asking them to forward to the County Offices any inquiries they might receive from suitable small holding applicants. One of these estate agents was the firm of which the arbitrator appointed six months later was a member. Apart from this, the firm have no relationship with the Surrey County Council, nor did they introduce a tenant for this holding. I see no reason, therefore, why the arbitrator should not have been selected to deal with this reference. With regard to the last part of the question, I have no knowledge as to anything that has occurred since the arbitrator was appointed, nor am I in a position to intervene or take any action in the matter.

THAMES CONSERVANCY ORDERS.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the heavy burdens put upon agricultural land by Thames Conservancy Orders, against which there is no appeal, he will consider introducing legislation to subject this body to the supervision of a Ministerial Department or devise some means by which this House can exercise some jurisdiction in this matter?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): I have been asked to reply. The Thames Conservancy are charged with the duty of maintaining the purity of the Thames and its tributaries. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health is not aware of instances of oppressive action by the Conservancy in the discharge of this duty, but if the hon. and gallant Member will furnish him with any such instances he will communicate with the Conservancy.

Brigadier-General BROWN: Is my right hon. Friend aware that farmers, some of whom are 40 miles from the Thames, are under the burden of orders from the sanitary officer of the local authority, as well as orders from the Conservancy? Why should they have to obey both orders?

Sir K. WOOD: If my hon. and gallant Friend will give me particulars, I will make inquiries.

WAGES.

Mr. BUXTON: 51.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that many agricultural workers are not receiving the statutory minimum wage to which they are entitled under the Agricultural Wage Regulation Act, 1924; whether he is satisfied that the machinery for inspection provided under the Act is adequate for the purpose of enforcing its provisions; and whether the number of agricultural workers receiving less than the minimum wage is negligible?

Mr. GUINNESS: From the information in the possession of my Department I am satisfied that the number of agricultural workers who are receiving less than the statutory rates of wages is not considerable in relation to the total numbers employed. The machinery for the enforcement of the Act is adequate for the purpose and information as to the action taken in this respect, up to the 30th September last, will be given in the third Annual Report under the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act, which will be published very shortly.

Mr. BUXTON: Can the Minister assure the House that the percentage receiving less than the legal wage is less than 25 per cent.?

Mr. GUINNESS: Certainly, it is very much less than 25 per cent. The total number of complaints since the Act came into operation was 5,400, and of those 2,200 were not substantiated so far as to lead to a demand for payment of arrears.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the situation still that the majority of the complaints received by his Department came from the trade unions?

Mr. GUINNESS: I think that a good many individual complaints came in.

Mr. WILLIAMS: If the Ministry rely on complaints coming along from trade unions, and two-thirds of the workmen are outside the unions, how can the right hon. Gentleman ascertain the percentage of people who are receiving less than the minimum wage?

Mr. GUINNESS: I have said that we do not rely on complaints coming from trade unions. In addition to dealing with specific complaints we are carrying out about 50 test inspections a month.

Brigadier-General BROWN: Is it not a fact that the trade unions do not represent the agricultural labourer at all?

CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 52.
asked the Minister of Agriculture how many agricultural co-operative societies exist in Great Britain for the purpose of collecting, grading, and distributing agricultural produce; the aggregate capital of these societies; and the percentage of agriculturel produce in Great Britain passing throught their hands?

Mr. GUINNESS: In 1923–24 there were 143 agricultural co-operative marketing societies with an aggregate share capital of about £800,000. In addition, seven general trading societies operated livestock auction marts or slaughter houses as a side line, but in the case of these seven societies the share capital has no relation to the produce turnover. The produce sold by these 150 societies amounted to nearly £5,000,000, or about 3½ per cent. of the total value of agricultural produce marketed in England and Wales. Only part of this produce was graded. In addition, there were considerable sales of cereals, hay, seeds and potatoes by general trading societies, but of these no record is obtainable.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an estimate as to how many there are before they are really established as corporations in agriculture?

IMPERIAL WIRELESS AND CABLES CONFERENCE.

Sir ROBERT LYNN: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the bearing which the Hardman Lever Report has on the question now being considered by the Imperial Wireless and Cables Conference, he will arrange that a copy of the Report shall be submitted to the Conference?

Mr. OTHO NICHOLSON: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the bearing which the Hardman Lever Report is bound to have on the question now being considered by the Imperial Wireless and Cables Conference, he will arrange that a copy of that Report shall be submitted to the Conference before they decide on their recommendations?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): I have been asked to answer these questions. My hon. Friends are under some misapprehension. The Hardman Lever Committee's attention was directed solely to the Inland Telegraph Service. Their Report and recommendations deal with that alone and have no relation to the problems now engaging the attention of the Imperial Wireless and Cable Conference.

Sir R. LYNN: Is it not a fact that the two are so related that they cannot be separated?

Colonel WOODCOCK: Can my right hon. Friend tell me the date on which this Committee reported?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Just about the beginning of the Session.

RUBBER EXPORT RESTRICTION SCHEME.

Sir FRANK NELSON: 50.
asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that, following upon the announcement of a Government inquiry into the rubber export restriction scheme, the value of crude rubber has now fallen by approximately £60 per ton, and that the resultant losses to British merchants on stocks of crude rubber and to shareholders in the depreciation of shares total at least £50,000,000; and will he now reconsider representing to the Committee of Civil Research that an interim Report shall be submitted, in an endeavour to restore some measure of confidence to the industry?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave to a similar question by my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Sir W. Lane Mitchell) on Monday last.

Sir F. NELSON: May I ask, with great respect, whether my right hon. Friend can give me an answer to the first part of my question; whether the Government agree with the figures I have quoted; and, further, whether the Prime Minister is aware that there is a very widespread opinion, not only in the rubber industry but in all the ancillary trades, that however desirable it may be—and it is desirable—that the rubber restriction scheme
should be examined, the present time has been a deplorably inopportune one; and is the Prime Minister further aware that the losses inflicted on some of the small investors are already such as to mean practically or wholly ruin?

The PRIME MINISTER: It is our knowledge of the fact that a certain amount of dislocation of this kind has been caused that is making us use every endeavour to expedite the inquiry, so that the industry may be left in a state of uncertainty as short a time as possible.

Major-General Sir ROBERT HUTCHISON: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect the Report from this Committee, and will the Report be made public?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am not yet in a position to answer that question.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the statement that his action has cost the investors £50,000,000?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have not myself examined those figures.

Mr. CAMPBELL: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the many questions addressed to Members on this subject show a widespread anxiety?

The PRIME MINISTER: I believe that is so.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is it not the state of uncertainty which is causing all the damage, and has my right hon. Friend consulted the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to what effect this will have on his Budget?

IRON AND STEEL TRADE (WAGES).

Sir H. CROFT: 59.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he can give a comparison of the average wages paid in the iron and steel works in France, Belgium, Luxembourg, and Germany to the various classes of workers compared to the wages of similar workers in this country?

Mr. BETTERTON: I regret that the information in my possession is insufficient to provide a basis for such a comparison.

Sir B. PETO: Does not the hon. Gentleman think it is important to those whose interests he specially represents, namely, the wage-earning classes, that his Department should have this information with regard to the wages paid in our staple trades and on the Continent?

Mr. BETTERTON: Since my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) put down a similar question last February, we have made every effort to obtain the information. We tried to get it from, among other sources, the International Labour Organisation at Geneva. We have done our best to get it, but we have failed.

Mr. AUSTIN HOPKINSON: Is it not the case that in these trades, such a large proportion of the wages is on a piece-work basis, that it is practically impossible to get a useful comparison between one country and another?

Mr. BETTERTON: That may be so, but, whatever be the cause, I have been unable to obtain any reliable information which I could present to the House.

Mr. HANNON: What in the world is the use of the International Labour Organisation at Geneva to the working-classes of this country?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is rather a large question.

UNEMPLOYMENT (MINERS, SOUTH WALES).

Mr. WALLHEAD: 60.
asked the Minister of Labour how many miners are at present receiving training at the various training centres in South Wales; whether any have been placed; and, if so, where, and at what occupations?

Mr. BETTERTON: There are no training centres for adults in South Wales, but special arrangements have been made to enable young unemployed miners from that area to attend the centres in the Midlands and that shortly to be opened at Bristol. There are at present 121 attending at Dudley, and 51 at Birmingham in addition to five at the Brandon Centre. None of these has yet reached the end of his course, but 41 men from South Wales mining areas have gone overseas in the last 12 months from the Brandon and Claydon Training Centres.
I assume the hon. Member is not referring to the juvenile unemployment centres, of which there are a number open in South Wales.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

ESTIMATES.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 69.
asked the Secretary of State for Air, if he can explain how this year's Air Estimates came to be given in considerable and accurate detail in certain newspapers before they were available in the Vote Office for Members of Parliament?

The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Samuel Hoare): The hon. and gallant Member is, I think, not quite correct as to his facts. The Estimates were available for Members in the Vote Office first thing on Thursday morning and, so far as I am aware, it was on this same day that there first appeared in the Press a certain amount of intelligent anticipation as to their general tenor. It is presumably within the hon. and gallant Member's experience that there is every year some degree of similar intelligent anticipation in the case of the Estimates of all the fighting Services. There has been no question of a departmental leakage.

Lieut.-Commander KENWOR'THY: I did not catch the last part of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, but does he mean to say that there has been no information given out by the Air Ministry about these Estimates before they were in the hands of Members at 10 o'clock on the day in question?

Sir S. HOARE: My answer means exactly what I stated, that there has been no question of departmental leakage.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: But, without leakage, has any deliberate information been given out by the Air Ministry in advance of that given to Members of this House?

Sir S. HOARE: No. No deliberate information has been given out by the Department.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: Is it not a fact that even the hon. and gallant Member
for Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) is entirely unable to stop newspaper enterprise?

ADEN PROTECTORATE (ZEIDI RAIDS).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 70.
asked the Secretary of State for Air if he can make any statement about the bombing operations by aeroplanes that have been carried out recently from the territory of the Aden Protectorate in the Yemen and the bombing of Kataba; and whether a state of war exists between the Government of Aden and the Zaidi Imam Yahya of Sana?

Mr. AMERY: I have been asked to take this question. The Imam of Sanaa has been in occupation of parts of the Aden Protectorate for some years. Protracted negotiations have taken place for a settlement of the question, and, in 1926, His Majesty's Government despatched a mission to Sanaa with this object. The Imam, however, refused to withdraw from the Protectorate. He was informed that, while His Majesty's Government were anxious to secure a friendly settlement of their differences with him, they could not recognise that he had any rights whatever within the Aden Protectorate, and they warned him that his continued occupation of parts of it would render him liable to retaliatory measures. In spite of this communication, armed Zeidi forces penetrated further into the Protectorate in September, 1927, and only withdrew on being warned that air action would be taken against them. Warnings were then dropped on certain towns in the Yemen that, in the event of further incursions being made into the Protectorate, air action would be taken against them. On the 8th February the Zeidis kidnapped the Alawi Sheikh and a relation of the Koteibi Sheikh, both of whom are entitled by treaty to the protection of His Majesty's Government. After 48 hours' notice, air action was taken against Kataba in Yemen territory, which is understood to be the headquarters of these Zeidi forces directly responsible for the outrage.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by "air action"? Does he mean dropping bombs, and, if so, was notice given to the non-combatants to get out?

Mr. AMERY: If the hon. and gallant Member had listened, he would have learned that 48 hours' notice was given.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: But is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the usual practice in these raids is for the fighting men to clear out and leave the old women behind them?

ADMIRALTY (PAYMENT OF SALARIES).

Mr. W. THORNE: 68.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if his attention has been called to the case of an Admiralty clerk being sued by a moneylender, and the statement made by the clerk that his financial difficulties were caused through the system of monthly payment of wages; and whether he is prepared to make any alteration in the method of payment to the lower-paid workers?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Bridgeman): I have seen in the Press a reference to the case to which the hon. Member refers, and from the inquiries which I have made I do not think that there is any evidence which would justify a change in the present system by which salaried officials are paid monthly. The Admiralty system in this respect is the same as obtains generally throughout the service. I would like to add that I can find no evidence that there is any foundation for the learned Judge's suggestion that cases of financial difficulty are particularly frequent at the Admiralty.

Mr. THORNE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that where these low-paid clerks are only in a position to receive their salary once a month, they have to go to the small shopkeepers and get their things in advance of receiving their salary, and that they are charged 10 or 15 per cent. in consequence?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: There may be some cases of that sort on first appointment, and I think it is quite a common practice—and we are always prepared to arrange—for advances to be made in such cases to those already in Admiralty service, but this particular case does not seem to me to be really intelligible in reference to what appeared in the Press. The man referred to has been a long time in the Admiralty.

Mr. THORNE: But cannot the right hon. Gentleman see any way of paying these low-paid clerks weekly the same as other workmen are paid?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: That question does not affect only the Admiralty, but all the services, and, if the House was prepared to add a large number of employés to our staff, we might be able to do it, because the hon. Gentleman will understand that a weekly salary means a great deal more clerical work. Any cases of hardship of this kind, I think, can be, and are, met by the ordinary machinery, but I completely fail to understand the statement reported as having been made about this particular case.

OLD AGE PENSIONS (BIRTH CERTIFICATES).

Mr. W. THORNE: 65.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that in hundreds of cases old age pensioners at 65 years of age are compelled to apply at Somerset House for a copy of their birth certificate at a cost of 5s. 6d. in order to prove their claim to a pension; and whether he is prepared to make arrangements to grant free certificates in cases of hardship?

Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir. Applicants for pensions at 65 years of age under the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act are not compelled to prove their age by the production of a birth certificate. If the applicant already has in his possession a birth certificate, he is requested to produce it; but otherwise the stated particulars of date of birth are verified gratuitously by the General Register Office on reference from my Department.

Mr. J. BAKER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that unemployment pay has been refused to men on the ground that they were 65 years of age and that they have been compelled to get a birth certificate to prove that they were not 65?

Sir K. WOOD: No. There are Press reports of cases of this character, but I invite hon. Members to furnish me with information.

Mr. BAKER: I know of only one case.

Mr. E. BROWN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his answer will give great satisfaction in the country, where it is not generally known?

Sir K. WOOD: I think they always do!

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

RURAL HOUSING ACT, 1926 (WEST RIDING).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 66.
asked the Minister of Health how many houses have been reconditioned in the West Riding of Yorkshire under the Rural Housing Act, 1926?

Sir K. WOOD: Up to the 31st December, 1927, the latest date for which information is available, the County Council of the West Riding of Yorkshire had received applications for assistance under the Act in question in respect of the improvement of 26 dwellings, but at that date work had not commenced on any of these dwellings.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that answer will give satisfaction?

POLICE CONSTABLES.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 67.
asked the Minister of Health how many county councils have erected houses for police constables under the various post-War Housing Acts; and how many were built under the Housing Acts, 1919, 1923, and 1924?

Sir K. WOOD: I will have a statement prepared and will send it to the hon. Member.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Does the right hon. Gentleman encourage watch committees to make provision for their officers under the various Housing Acts?

Sir K. WOOD: I will do so
wherever it is possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

TELEPHONE OPERATORS.

Sir FRANK SANDERSON: 63.
asked the Postmaster-General if he will state the rates of pay and hours of working of telephone operators at the present time and also in October, 1924?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The present pay, including bonus, for full-time female telephonists in London ranges from 30s. 8d. a week at 16 years of age to a maximum of 66s. 2d. a week; the corresponding range in October, 1924, was from 31s. 6d. to 62s. 8d. The rates payable in the provinces are lower and vary according to the town in which the staff are employed. The hours of attendance for full-time telephonists are 48 a week and are the same as they were in October, 1924.

INLAND TELEGRAPH SERVICES (INQUIRY).

Sir F. SANDERSON: 64.
asked the Postmaster-General when he proposes to publish the Report of the Hardman Lever Committee on the Telegraph Services?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to a similar question by the hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Couper) on 16th February.

Mr. W. BAKER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that an article purporting to forecast this Report appeared in a newspaper of which Sir Hardman Lever is a director on the 6th instant?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I was not aware of that fact.

BOOTHFERRY BRIDGE-HOWDEN ROAD.

Major CARVER: 75.
asked the Minister of Transport what steps are being taken to connect up the road to Howden, on the East Riding side of the new Booth-ferry bridge, which structure is announced as being ready for traffic next October; whether his Department has received a scheme and plans for this road from the local authority; and if he will expedite matters?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): The scheme in question is before me, but no agreement has yet been reached as to the allocation of the cost. I am endeavouring to expedite a settlement.

Major CARVER: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is a district council second-class road and likely to become a main arterial road, and does he realise that the local authority are quite unable to bear any of the expense involved?

Colonel ASHLEY: I am aware of all that, and I am doing my best to get a settlement. I cannot do more.

ELECTRICITY SUPPLIES (STATISTICS).

Mr. HARDIE: 76 and 77.
asked the Minister of Transport (1) if he can give the number of employés engaged in the production and distribution of electricity in England, Scotland and Wales before the passing of the present Electricity Act, and the number at the present time or nearest convenient date;
(2) if he can give the amount of electrical energy produced in England, Scotland

The position as to the number of staff and workmen engaged in the generation, distribution and administration of the public supply of electricity in Great Britain is as follows:—

(i) Year 1925–26 (31st December, 1925, for Companies; 31st March, 1926, for Local Authorities).

Number employed 45,284, an increase of about 4,000 as compared with preceding year.

(ii) Year 1926–27 (31st December, 1926, for Companies: 31st March, 1927, for Local Authorities).

While complete official statistics are not yet available, the approximate number employed in this year was 49,000.

The position as regards the generation of electricity in Great Britain during the year ending 31st March, 1926, and the year ending 31st March, 1927 (the latest for which official figures are available) was as follows:—







Units generated by—



Year ending 31st March.
Authorised Undertakers.
Railway and Tramway Authorities and certain non-statutory undertakings.
Total.







Million.
Million.
Million.


1926
…
…
…
…
6698.8
1424.1
8122.9


1927
…
…
…
…
7062.4
1303.6
8366.0*


*The figures for the year ending 31st March, 1927, cover the period of the prolonged stoppage in the coal mines during 1926.

GERMAN REPARATION.

Mr. WALLHEAD: 74.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what is the total value of the payments received from Germany under the Dawes plan in 1926, 1927, and 1928; how much of the total was paid in gold; and what was the character and values of the amount which was paid in commodities?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): The information asked for by the hon. Member forms the contents of a number of detailed tables. These will

land and Wales before the passing of the present Act; and the amount at the latest convenient date since the passing of the Act?

Colonel ASHLEY: As the answers to this question and the next contain a considerable number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate the desired information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. HARDIE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say briefly whether there has been an increase or a decrease?

Colonel ASHLEY: An increase under both heads.

Following is the information:

be found in the Reports of the Agent-General for Reparation Payments, dated 30th November, 1926, and 10th December, 1927, published by the Stationery Office and in the Press Statement issued by the Agent-General on the 7th March. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the last-named Statement.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: Can the Prime Minister tell us what business he proposes to take if he gets the suspension of the Eleven o' Clock Rule?

The PRIME MINISTER: We are proposing to suspend the Eleven o' Clock Rule in order to make sure of finishing the Committee stage of the Votes which are put down on the Air Estimates. We intend also to take the remaining stages of the Protection of Lapwings Bill and the Report stage of the Superannuation (Diplomatic Service) Money Resolution.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceeding on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 204; Noes, 97.

Division No. 29.]
AYES.
[3.43 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Moreing, Captain A. H.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Albery, Irving James
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Nelson, Sir Frank


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Fermoy, Lord
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Fielden, E. B.
Oakley, T.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Fraser, Captain Ian
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Apsley, Lord
Ganzonl, Sir John
Penny, Frederick George


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Gates, Percy
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J.(Kent, Dover)
Gault, Lieut. Col. Andrew Hamilton
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Balniel, Lord
Goff, Sir Park
Philipson, Mabel


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Grace, John
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Grant, Sir J. A.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Preston, William


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Grotrian, H. Brent.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Bennett, A. J.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.(Bristol, N.)
Ramsden, E.


Berry, Sir George
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Remnant, Sir James


Betterton, Henry B.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Hacking, Douglas H.
Rice, Sir Frederick


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.
Hamilton, Sir George
Ropner, Major L.


Brass, Captain W.
Hammersley, S. S.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Salmon, Major I.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Harrison, G. J. C.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Briggs, J. Harold
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Brittain, Sir Harry
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Savery, S. S.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hills, Major John Waller
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Buchan, John
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Burman, J. B.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Smithers, Waldron


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Campbell, E. T.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Carver, Major W. H.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A.(Birm., W.)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Storry-Deans, R.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Iveagh, Countess of
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Clayton, G. C.
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Templeton, W. P.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Cooper, A. Duff
Knox, Sir Alfred
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Cope, Major William
Lamb, J. Q.
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Couper, J. B.
Loder, J. de V.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Long, Major Eric
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Looker, Herbert William
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Lumley, L. R.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Macintyre, Ian
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple


Dalkeith, Earl of
Macmillan, Captain H.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Macquisten, F. A.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Dawson, Sir Phillip
Maltland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Dixey, A. C.
Maltland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Drewe, C.
Malone, Major P. B.
Womersley, W. J


Eden, Captain Anthony
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Margesson, Captain D.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Ellis, R. G.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)



Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Everard, W. Lindsay
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Major Sir George Hennessy and Mr.




F. C. Thomson.


NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hamilton, Sir H. (Orkney & Shetland)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hardle, George D.
Rose, Frank H.


Ammon, Charles George
Harney, E. A.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Harris, Percy A.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Baker, Walter
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hirst, G. H.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Barnes, A.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Barr, J.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Batey, Joseph
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Kelly, W. T.
Snell, Harry


Bondfield, Margaret
Kennedy, T.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Stephen, Campbell


Briant, Frank
Lansbury, George
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Lawrence, Susan
Strauss, E. A.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Lawson, John James
Sullivan, J.


Charleton, H. C.
Lee, F.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Cluse, W. S.
Lindley, F. W.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R
Lunn, William
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Cove, W. G.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Tomlinson, R. P.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Townend, A. E.


Crawfurd, H. E
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Dalton, Hugh
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Day, Harry
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Dennison, R.
March, S.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Duncan, C.
Maxton, James
Wellock, Wilfred


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Weish Univer.)
Montague, Frederick
Welsh, J. C.


Fenby, T. D.
Morris, R. H.
Whiteley, W.


Gosling, Harry
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wiggins, William Martin


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edln., Cent.)
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Owen, Major G.
Windsor, Walter


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wright, W.


Grundy, T. W.
Ponsonby, Arthur



Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvli)
Potts, John S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Hayes.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (EQUAL FRANCHISE) BILL,

"to assimilate the franchises for men and women in respect of Parliamentary and Local Government Elections; and for purposes consequential thereon," presented by Sir William Joynson-Hicks; supported by Lieut.-Colonel Sir Vivian Henderson; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 60.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

AIR ESTIMATES, 1928.

SIR SAMUEL HOARE'S STATEMENT.

Order for Committee read.

4.0 p.m.

The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Samuel Hoare): I beg to move, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
Hon. Members will notice a conspicuous change in the form of these Estimates. The old Middle East Vote has been practically abolished, and Air Votes have absorbed the greater part of the expenditure which has hitherto been carried by the Colonial Office. I think hon. Members will welcome the change, which will enable them to obtain a fuller and clearer view of the total amount we are spending upon our Air Services. Further, I think they will be glad to note the fact that although Air Votes have absorbed about £2,000,000 of Middle East expenditure the net amount which I am asking this afternoon is only £700,000 more than the amount for which I asked the House a year ago; that is to say, we have absorbed about £2,000,000 of the Colonial Office expenditure with no more than a net increase of £700,000 in Air Votes. If hon. Members will look at the gross figures, that is to say, the total amount we are spending on the Air Services from all sources, they will find that I am asking for £850,000 less than a year ago. There has thus been a reduction of no less than 4 per cent. in the total expenditure upon Air Services as compared with the expenditure last year. If these Estimates are accepted by the House, at the end of the year the Air Force will have been substantially strengthened by an increase equivalent to four squadrons, and no less than 70 per cent. of the squadrons will have been armed with new type machines, while at the end of the year the bill will be 4 per cent. less than the bill of 12 months ago. We have only been able to reach this result with drastic cuts, and with a sacrifice of many items which my advisers and I would have wished to include in the Estimates. We feel, however, that at a time when there
is an urgent need for the retrenchment of national expenditure we must take our share; a new and progressive service cannot isolate itself from the civil life of the country. When the country urgently needs the retrenchment of its expenditure, the Air Force and the Air Ministry must do their part.
I have a wide field to cover, and with the approval of the House I propose to plunge at once into the centre of the subject, and to deal at the outset of my speech with two questions which I believe will become very prominent during the ensuing 12 months. I propose, first, to say something about airships, and next to deal with certain developments which I shall outline in connection with civil air routes, and then I propose to deal, so far as time permits, with questions connected with military aviation. During the next 12 months the two airships upon whose construction we have been engaged for some considerable time should be flying and carrying out their tests, and I ask hon. Members to take a close and a sympathetic interest in what is a very difficult but at the same time a very great and interesting experiment. I particularly ask hon. Members to be as dispassionate as they can in considering this question. Unfortunately, the question of airships has been in the past the centre of many bitter controversies. On the one hand, there have been the fanatics who believe that in the future everyone will travel by airship and no one by ships on the surface of the sea, and, on the other hand, the fanatics who believe that we are breaking the Ten Commandments in attempting the experiment at all. This afternoon I would ask the House to turn away from the fanatics and to look coolly, soberly and dispassionately at the problem which we are trying to solve.
The problem before us is that of quicker Imperial communication. How can we lessen the time that is now taken in journeys between London and the capitals of the Empire? How can we give the Empire a physical unity which it has never possessed before? I have discussed the question of shipping with several important shipping authorities, and it does not seem to me to be likely, at any rate for some years to come, that shipping will be able completely to solve
the problem of quickening the journeys over the longer distances of the Empire. Shipping authorities tell me that over these longer distances the cost of expediting the services would be so great as to make it an uneconomical proposition to attempt it. I do not believe that the aeroplane, invaluable instrument that it is for the shorter distances, will alone, for some years to come, be able to solve the problem of shortening the longer distances between London and the various capitals of the Empire. The aeroplane is an instrument of comparatively short range. At present, it cannot fly regularly by night. There is a further difficulty in the need of landing in foreign territories, and while I, myself, believe that the aeroplane will be invaluable for shortening the time of journeys of comparatively short range, I do not believe for some years to come it will be able to deal with journeys the range of which will be 2,000, 3,000 or 4,000 miles. The airship, on the other hand, if it can be proved to be safe and dependable, has a range of several thousand miles. It need not, therefore, land on foreign territory. It can fly by day and by night, and, provided the weather reports are favourable and comprehensive, it can use favourable winds such as the "trades" and other winds in passing from one part of the Empire to another.
Supposing we can achieve those results, are not the advantages so great to the world, and so great to the Empire, as to justify—I will go further and say, as to compel any progressive Government to attempt the experiment? For the last three years we have been developing our programme, and while I will not disguise from the House the fact that there are still difficulties to surmount, and that the way is not altogether clear, I can tell the House that we have made substantial progress, and that for the first time in the history of airships we have made a concentrated and simultaneous attack upon all the principal problems connected with the subject. We have analysed the lessons of the past. We have carried through a long and an intensive programme of research and experiment. We have consulted outside scientists upon the complex questions of stresses and their reaction
on design. We have organised a new section of the Meteorological Office for dealing with the all-important question of charting the currents of the air. We have improved our wireless installation. Indeed, there is not a single direction in which we have not made substantial progress during the last three years.
I believe that we could have built these two airships in a little more than a year. Instead of that, we have devoted the best part of three years to experiment, research and investigation of every kind. I believe that the designs of the two new airships show the value of this long period of intensive research and experiment. Their designs show a considerable advance upon the designs of former airships. They are bigger, and, therefore, it has been possible to use stronger and heavier girders in their construction. The problem of weather warnings has been greatly advanced as compared with what it was a few years ago. The wireless installation, as I said just now, is much better. Mooring towers have been developed, and this development means that we are no longer faced with the constant inconvenience of taking one of these great ships in and out of its shed. This has very much changed the problem for the better.
When I have been to Cardington and to Howden, the two stations where the airships are being built, I have been struck by the sober and resolute way in which the designers are facing their task. They know that they are up against a very difficult problem. They are not rashly optimistic, but they are confident that they will surmount the very formidable difficulties. I would ask the House to-day to leave these men to finish the experiment, and to judge its advantages, not by the claims of the fanatics on either side, but by the actual results that it will show. In the meantime, I am glad to think that we have the sympathetic support of the Dominion Governments. One and all, they are giving us what help they can, whether it be by building mooring towers to make it possible to carry out flights between London and their capitals, or whether it be by the scarcely less important step of developing their meteorological services. I am human enough to admit to the House that I attach much greater value to the support of the Dominion Governments than I do
to the critics who, if they had lived 200 years ago, would have opposed the introduction of stage coaches, and if they had lived a century ago would have voted against the introduction of steam and iron ships in the Navy.

Commander BELLAIRS: The Air Ministry was opposed to airships up to about four years ago.

Sir S. HOARE: If that were correct it would only show how much wiser they are than they were, but it is not correct.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is this a case, on the other hand, of going back from railway trains to stage coaches?

Sir S. HOARE: I would ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman to follow the advice I have just given, and to wait until the experiment is completed and judge by its results.
I pass from the question of airships to the question of civil air routes. I take this question at the outset of my speech because I wish to draw the attention of the House particularly to certain developments we propose to carry out during the course of the next 12 months. The House will note that although the amount asked for under the Civil Aviation Vote is somewhat less than the amount asked for a year ago, the sum which is devoted to subsidy of commercial air lines is greater. We have had savings due to the completion of certain stages of our building programme, and I am glad to think that these savings are to be devoted to further subsidies to civil aviation. The House, it is evident, will desire to know what are the objects for which we propose to make these additional grants. I will state them very shortly.
We hope this year to make a beginning with the biggest civil air route in the world—a weekly mail service to India—a service by which it will be possible to send letters from London to Delhi in seven days and from London to Calcutta in nine days. I tell the House how we have arrived at this conclusion. We have now a not inconsiderable experience of the working of civil air lines. The contract with the 'Imperial Airways Company has been in existence three or four years, and we are in a position to assess the results, and to judge of the lessons that our experience
has taught us. There are two lessons that stand out pre-eminently from the experience of the last three years. The first is that our policy should be mainly Imperial, not mainly European. Obviously, the more Imperial the routes the more likely we are to give the Empire the physical unity we desire, and the longer the route the more likely we are to obtain revenue.
I come to the second lesson that we have drawn from our experience of civil air lines. It is, that if civil aviation is to become self-supporting, the company that is operating must be in a position to substitute new types for old types of machines at comparatively short intervals. Let me give the House an illustration of what I mean. When Imperial Airways started their flying operations, the running costs per ton mile for one of their normal aircraft was 4s. 2d. The new types now operating on their routes are costing only 1s. 10d. per ton mile. That is to say, the new types are covering their "prime costs" of operation as distinct from standing charges. If in a space of two or three years the substitution of new-type for old-type machine has made these results possible, it seems clear that if the company is in a position to make further changes to newer types, we may look forward to a time—I hope a not too far distant time—when civil aviation will be self-supporting, and not subsidised at all.
When we went into the existing agreements with Imperial Airways, we came to the conclusion that they needed readjustment. First, the time was too short for these developments to take place, and, secondly, there were not funds available for this regular change to new types of machines from the old types of machines. Accordingly, after a full inquiry into the whole question, we have decided to substitute a new agreement for the old agreements based upon these three basic principles: In the first place, the development of an Imperial route, namely, a weekly mail service to India; secondly, there will be a subsidy under the agreement that will make it possible for the company to substitute regularly new types for old types of machines; thirdly, the right of the State to share in any ultimate prosperity that the company may achieve.
The details are not yet complete, and we are still discussing them with the company and the Government of India; but I thought it right to announce to the House at once the outline of the agreement we are attempting to make, and to tell hon. Members that as soon as the details are worked out I will lay a White Paper, as I did in the case of the original agreement with the company.
Hon. Members may ask when it is actually proposed to start the weekly service to India. I cannot give a definite answer for the very good reason that we must advance stage by stage. We have to consult various countries and authorities in connection with this service, but I can tell the House that we hope to make a beginning this year, and I am not unhopeful of getting over such difficulties as at present exist. There is one difficulty to which I would like to make a passing allusion. Unfortunately, the Persian Government have objected to granting flying facilities over the Persian section of the route. I am sorry that is the case, and I cannot help thinking that it must be due to some misunderstanding, because it seems to me that the air route is manifestly to the advantage of Persia. Unlike other foreign companies, we are not asking for any subsidy from the Persian Government. We are offering the Persians for nothing an air route over a very inaccessible part of Persia, and providing them with landing grounds and aerodrome facilities. These obvious advantages seemed at one time greatly to appeal to them because they actually signed an agreement with us. Persian officials helped us to mark out the route, and an agreement was actually signed between the British and Persian Governments. That being so, I cannot help feeling that there has been some misunderstanding which I hope we shall be able to put right.
Meanwhile, I may tell the House that we are making investigations as to the possibilities of alternative routes, and, although I cannot give to-night very definite details on the subject, I say again that I am not unhopeful that in the course of a year we shall be able to get over these tiresome difficulties that so far have held up one section of the route. If we can only get this air service into operation between London and Delhi, I believe
we shall have set on foot an air route which in the course of time will be so attractive to the business man and the traveller who wishes to save time, that we shall receive a substantial and increasing revenue from mails and passenger traffic upon it.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the route going on to Australia?

Sir S. HOARE: I certainly hope that at some time it will, but for the moment we are dealing with a service to Delhi.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are you negotiating with the Dutch?

Sir S. HOARE: I cannot say that we are negotiating with them, but we have had some very friendly talks with the Dutch, and once we get to India we hope we shall pass on to the Dutch Indies and Australia. I pass now from the civil air routes to the wide field of military aviation. Unless the House wishes it, I do not propose to deal in detail with the many items that are described in the White Paper. I will merely draw the attention of the House to one or two prominent features in the programme for the year. Let me, first of all, say that we are augmenting the strength of the Air Force by the equivalent of four squadrons. We are increasing the Air Force in several directions. We are increasing the strength of the land machines by two new squadrons for India. We are increasing the strength of the deck-landing machines by forming two new units for the Fleet air arm. We are also making a very interesting development by forming two new units of flying boats.
There is one significant fact in the Estimates to which I would draw the attention of hon. Members, and it is that as a result of the introduction of new types of machines we are requiring substantially less spare parts, and a sum of no less than £200,000 is being saved this year in the cost of spare parts by the introduction of new types. On the experiment and research side we are asking the House approximately for the same amount of money that we asked for 12 months ago. There is an interesting development on this side, namely, the provision we are making for a tank for testing model seaplanes and a variable density wind tunnel for testing the air flow upon model aeroplanes. If these contrivances prove satisfactory, I believe
they will be the means of making our aeroplanes and seaplanes even more efficient than they have been in the past.
For the moment I will leave the details of the Estimates, and no doubt hon. Members will raise some of them in the Debate. I will come back to the principles which lie behind those details, which are guiding us, and which are the foundations upon which the Air Force is built. This is out an unsuitable moment at which to make a survey. The Air Force has now been in existence for 10 years. It is almost exactly 10 years ago that, by an Act of Parliament, an independent Air Force was created responsible to a single Minister and to a single Department. In considering these Estimates, I ask hon. Members to test our experience over a period of 10 years and to put themselves two questions: Firstly, was the country justified in creating an organisation of this kind; and secondly, has the experience of the last 10 years justified the decision that was then taken? As to the first of those questions, I do not think I need say more than that the creation of an independent Air Force and an independent organisation to administer it came about, not as a result of the claims of theorists, but, as the result of a most definite demand from public opinion. It was demanded, first of all, for the purpose of avoiding the duplication of organisations, and, secondly, to ensure unity of command and unity of effort in meeting the menace of air raids in London and in this country. Since then many inquiries have justified and emphasised the wisdom of the decision which was then taken.
I pass now to the second question, and as I said I want hon. Members to ask themselves whether the experience of the last 10 years has justified that decision. If hon. Members view the question as I do, I imagine they will ask themselves three questions. Firstly, has the expense been justified; secondly, has our air organisation provided a suitable and sound career for the officers and men in the Air Force, and is it making them capable of carrying out the duties imposed upon them: and thirdly, is our air organisation turning out safe and powerful machines and engines, and is it keeping abreast of the aeronautical developments of other countries? Let me suggest to the House one or two facts that
may help hon. Members to give an answer to each of these three questions, and let me begin with the question of cost.
Every flying service, however it be organised, will always cost considerable sums of money. We are dealing with human lives, and we cannot take unnecessary risks. Moreover, we are dealing with a Service and with a science that is constantly developing, and it is impossible to stereotype and standardise material when almost every day changes and improvements are taking place. Moreover, in our own case, when the Royal Air Force was created 10 years ago, we started with no permanent organisation of any kind. We had no barracks, we had no cadres, we had none of that organisation, the creation of many generations, which is possessed by the older Services. We had, therefore, to start in this way, involving heavy and exceptional expenditure. I can say, looking at the figures, that we have faced these great financial difficulties, and we have been not altogether unsuccessful in overcoming at any rate some of them.
Let me give to the House one or two examples to illustrate what I mean. Since I first became Secretary of State for Air, in 1922, the number of squadrons has been more than doubled, and yet the increase in personnel has been only one-fifth. In 1922, we were spending only £2,000,000 upon technical equipment; we were still living upon War stocks. Now the War stocks have come to an end, and we are spending nearly £6,000,000 this year on machines and engines, and yet we have an increase in the gross Air Votes of only 22 per cent. Thirdly, in 1922, the Air Force had just taken over the responsibility for the garrisoning of Iraq and Transjordan. The Geddes Committee had recently reported and showed that, at the time of their Report, the expenditure upon our garrisons in the Middle East was £27,000,000. The Air Force took over the responsibility, and, in the course of a year, the £27,000,000 was reduced to £13,000,000; and I am glad to think that year by year since then we have made further reductions, with the result that to-day the expenditure upon the garrisons in Iraq and Transjordan is, not £27,000,000 or £13,000,000, but only about £2,000,000.

Commander BELLAIRS: Is that the Estimate for this year or for last year?

Sir S. HOARE: For the coming year.

Commander BELLAIRS: With reinforcements?

Sir S. HOARE: There is no question of reinforcements. These illustrations, to which I could add if I had the time, justify me in claiming that year by year we have made a substantial and not unsuccessful effort in reducing expenditure to the very minimum.
I come now to the second question that I suggested just now to the attention of hon. Members—Has the Air Force, during the last 10 years, justified its existence in providing a stable and honourable career for its officers and men, and is it turning out officers and men who are capable of carrying out the tasks that are imposed upon them? As to whether the Air Force is capable or not of carrying out the tasks imposed upon it, I think hon. Members are just as competent as I am to give an answer. I can only say, in a sentence, that it seems to me that the Air Force, during these 10 years, has never failed to carry out the very difficult duties with which it has been faced. At the present moment it is carrying out the task of repelling the raids of rebellious Arab tribes on the borders of Iraq. It is possible that in the course of this Debate hon. Members will require further information on that subject. Let me only say, in passing, that I am fully confident that the Air Force will carry out those duties just as successfully as it is carrying out the equally difficult duties with which it has been faced in Iraq and Transjordan during the last three or four years.
Let me now pass to the other side of the question, and look for a moment at the Air Force as a career for the officers and men who are members of it, and I ask the attention of the House to this side of the question for the definite reason that it is often said in ordinary conversation that, for one reason or another, the Air Force is not a stable career—that young officers are turned adrift at the end of two or three years' service, and that it is not as stable a career as it should be. The Air Force is bound to have its peculiar risks, just as any other profession has its risks, but I am glad to be able to tell the House to-day that last year was the best year, taking into account the proportion of
flying hours to fatal accidents, that we have ever had. Hon. Members will have noticed in the White Paper the allusion that I make to two safety devices that we are introducing into the force. They will have noted, I hope with satisfaction, the fact that by far the greater part of our units are now equipped with parachutes. I have analysed the fatal accidents very carefully, and I can tell the House that more than one fatal accident has undoubtedly been avoided during the last 12 months by the use of parachutes. Then, again, there is the safety appliance known as the "slotted wing," an invention of which Mr. Handley Page and those who have worked with him may be justly proud. It is an invention to enable the pilot to keep control in a "stall." During the course of the winter, my wife and I made a flight in one of these experimental machines equipped with the "slotted wing," and I would advise any hon. Member who wishes to do acrobatic feats in the air without any risk to himself to follow our example and make a similar experiment. It is a matter of great satisfaction to all of us——

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is that an invitation?

Sir S. HOARE: It is an invitation. If the hon. and gallant Member will accept it, I shall be delighted to arrange a flight for him. I think it will be a great satisfaction to the House that this British invention should now be in process of adoption throughout the whole British Air Force, and, more than that, should be taken up, as it is being taken up, by practically all the great countries of the world. There is another side of the question to which I should like to make an allusion while I am speaking of the Air-Force as a career for the officers and men in it. We are most anxious to bring the Air Force into as close and as constant connection as we can with the intellectual life of the country at the Universities, and with the industrial life of our great towns. That is the main reason why we started what are known as the University Air Squadrons. Hon. Members will have noted with satisfaction the progress of those squadrons which is described in the White Paper. They are extremely valuable organisations from the point of view of encouraging young men to enter the Air Force,
and, in my view, they are even more than that, in that they bring the Air Force and the problems of the Air Force into the very centre of University life.
That, again, is the reason why a short time ago we started what are known as the Auxiliary and Cadre Squadrons. We started the Auxiliary and Cadre Squadrons mainly to bring the Air Force into close contact with the great towns and with the principal centres of population in the country. We wished to interest the great towns and the great industries, particularly the metal industries, in the progress of the Force, and, just as in the past certain regiments were connected with certain Service families or with certain counties, so we wished to connect these new Air Force units with the great industries and the great centres of population. The problem was particularly important for us for this reason, that, as a result of our short-service commission system, about 150 comparatively young officers leave the Air Force every year. While we cannot accept responsibility for finding these young men employment, we naturally do everything in our power to obtain for them suitable appointments.
During the last year I have had several interviews with representative employers, and with representative employers' organisations, with the object of bringing these young men into even closer touch with the business and industrial world than has been possible in the past, and I am glad to be able to tell the House that in these Estimates I am asking for provision for the expenses of a full-time official, whose object it will be, acting on the lines of the Appointments Boards at Universities, to bring these young men, as they leave the Force, into touch with employers who are ready to give them appointments. Although this new organisation has only been in existence for a comparatively few weeks, already we have achieved not inconsiderable success in finding appointments for quite a number of these young men. So far as the permanent officers of the Air Force are concerned, as distinguished from the short-service officers, there again, this year, we are trying to make a step in advance. The Air Force, as I said just now, has been in existence for 10 years, and we feel that the time has come for making a survey of the whole position, and for
doing what is possible to make it an even more open career than it has been in the past for young officers of outstanding ability.
There is another feature of the Estimates in this connection which is worthy of attention. We are at last, after many years of delay, taking provision for starting permanent buildings for the cadet college at Cranwell. Cranwell is a training ground for all the young men who will be the permanent officers of the Force. It is the most important station in the country, yet the cadets are still housed in war-time huts, and hon. Members who have been there have told me it is little short of a public scandal that they should have no permanent buildings over their heads. I regard it as essential to the stability of a career in the Service that they should be properly housed, and on that account we are making a modest provision, only a few thousand pounds this year, for starting permanent buildings which are long overdue. Taking the question as a whole—I could add, of course, indefinitely to the illustration I have given—I think I can claim that in the course of these 10 years, a Service has been created in which the career of the officer and the man is becoming stage by stage more stable, and even more honourable than it was at first.
I come to the last of my few questions, the question as to whether or not the organisation of the Air Force has justified its existence in providing powerful machines and engines and in keeping abreast with aeronautical developments all over the world. I suppose anyone who is connected for several years with a great organisation is bound to see in large focus the development and the progress that is being made, but setting aside any bias that I may possess, and discounting any prejudices, I believe I am justified in claiming that over these 10 years we have made not unsatisfactory progress. Let me give an illustration or two to point the claim I am making. There is the well-known illustration of the Schneider Cup machine, an illustration which probably occurs to the mind of almost every Member, and the fact that in the first contest held after the War the speed at which the race was won was 107 miles an hour, whereas this year it was 280.
An attempt to pass the 300 miles per hour mark is being made this afternoon at Calshot, and I hope, if all goes well, a world's record may be established. Then if you compare the performance of our engines to-day with the performance of our engines a few years ago, there is the fact that both air-cooled and water-cooled engines develop to-day more than twice the horse-power they did four years ago, and the weight per horse-power has been improved by 25 per cent. Thirdly, there is the fact that the period between the overhauls that are necessary for engines has improved by 300 per cent. These are only illustrations. Hon. Members can add to them from their own knowledge.

Mr. HARDIE: The Minister having given the ton-mile rate as having improved from 4s. 2d. to 1s. 10d. for heavier than air machines, can he give any figure for ton-mile of lighter than air machines?

5.0 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: I am dealing with aeroplanes at the moment. In the case of airships, the hon. Member seems to forget that we are making a great experiment which is quite incomparable with the past. The airships we are building, to take one particular instance, are a great deal bigger than any airship we have built in the past. The engines we are using for them are very different from those we had before.
These illustrations are sufficient to show the kind of progress we have made over the last 10 years, and I think they justify me in claiming that, taking the general average of our machines, our standard is higher than the standard of any other country. In these Estimates, there are two directions in which we are making very noteworthy technical progress. There is first of all the programme on which we are engaged in connection with metal machines and there is the development we are making in increasing the number and improving the performance of our flying boats. I am not sure that these are not the two most noteworthy features of the research programme of this year. First of all, there is the progress we are making with metal machines. I think hon. Members will agree with me that in this country we have a great deal to gain from the
development of metal machines. The metal industry is one of our greatest staple industries and the development of the metal machines will in course of time make it more easy to standardise parts and to ensure mass production. Although, therefore, at the outset the production of metal machines must be very expensive, it is worth embarking upon a development which obviously possesses such very great advantages.
It is satisfactory to note that we have surmounted many initial difficulties connected with metal machines, and during this year we shall have no fewer than seven all-metal types of machines in general use in the Air Force. Hon. Members may have noticed the very remarkable flight now being carried out by four flying boats to Singapore and the Far East. These are all-metal flying boats and the flight will provide us with very valuable data in connection with our future programme of metal development. To-day we are quite definitely ahead of any other country in the matter of metal construction. We are quite definitely ahead of any other country, for instance, in the use of stainless steel for our metal machines, and I believe also we have gone further than anyone else has gone in providing safeguards against what is the chief danger to a metal machine, the danger of corrosion. The fact that in these Estimates we are providing a substantial sum for the further development of the metal machine shows what importance we attach to the need of substituting metal for wood wherever it is practicable.
Then there is the other interesting side of our development programme, the proposals we make for adding to the number of our flying boat units and building a number of new types of flying boats. After the War our resources had necessarily to be mainly used in providing land machines for the urgent problem of air defence. Since then we have made some progress with our defence scheme and the result is that we now have funds at our disposal for developing the flying boat. I do not think I need argue the advantages of the flying boat to an Empire whose communications are mainly sea communications. During the summer I had an opportunity of gaining direct experience of flying boats. I made a flight to the Baltic with four flying boats in probably the worst
fortnight in the worst summer we have ever had. I had ample opportunity of testing their stability in the air and their power of riding out heavy seas. It was a very interesting experience. I had flown many thousands of miles by land and this was the complementary experience of making a long flight over the sea. We flew in this very bad weather, information, carrying out our programme, landing in heavy seas, riding out heavy seas, at one time refuelling on a very rough morning in the harbour of Esbjerg in Denmark at the rate of 300 gallons an hour, and finally, at the end of the flight, flying not over the sea, but over the land, for the whole breadth of Denmark, in
the face of a heavy head wind. It was interesting to fly over the sea in a flying boat, but it was still more interesting to fly over the land. My own experience was as nothing to the experience of the four Southamptons which have recently flown to Singapore. These are flying boats, with the hulls of boats, with portholes and anchors and many of the properties we associate with a ship upon the sea. They flew over the Syrian mountains, over the whole of the Mesopotamian Desert and across Mesopotamia to Basra. What better example can we have of the mobility of the aeroplane, of the machine that can fly swiftly over land and sea alike than the land machine, for instance, in which a year ago I flew over 700 miles of sea, and the sea machines that during the course of the last few weeks have flown many hundreds of miles over mountains and over the land? I hope I have said enough to interest hon. Members in the flying-boat side of our programme. This is the biggest flying-boat programme that we have had since the War, and I regard it as one of the central and most important items in the whole field of our air development. I hope I am not wearying the House with these many details that I have ventured to give them. I have chosen these illustrations, as I wish to give the House some idea of the progress we hope to make this year and of the progress we believe we have made in recent years. I have been looking back, and I believe we have made substantial progress, but it has not always been easy. We have been faced with a period of financial stringency. We have often had to go more slowly than my
advisers and I would have desired, yet none the less we have made not unsatisfactory progress.
I think I may be pardoned in my last sentence or two for making an observation that I would not make upon any ordinary occasion. This is the end of the first ten years of the life of the Air Ministry. I know how sensitive, and how rightly sensitive, the House is as to the introduction of the name of any permanent official or any serving officer in the Debates of this House, but upon this occasion I feel that I must make a passing reference to the man, who, during the whole of these ten years, has watched over the life of the Air Force and to whose sound judgment and resolute purpose so much of this success is due. There has never been a fighting service so closely identified with its chief as has the Air Force during the ten years it has been identified with Sir Hugh Trenchard. To-day I do not mention his name in order to bring it into the field of parliamentary controversy. I mention it solely with this object that if in the course of this Debate hon. Members think that we have made not unsatisfactory progress, they should give credit to whom credit is due, and they should remember the sound judgment and the resolute purpose without which the progress that I have just described would have been impossible in the first ten years of the life of this new service.

Mr. DALTON: The right hon. Gentleman has given the House one of those clear and precise and highly competent expositions, to which we have become accustomed from him while he has been Air Minister. I am sure that much that he has said has been of very great interest to all parts of the House. May I take a preliminary point which was raised during question time by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) and express regret that this Memorandum which we are considering this afternoon was not available to us at the Vote Office before it reached the Press. The right hon. Gentleman was a little touchy, I thought, in answering my hon. and gallant Friend, who suggested that there had been a leakage of information from the Air Ministry. We are apt to be a little on the alert at this moment against possible leakages from Government
Departments, and though this is a small peccadillo compared with other suspected lapses, and is free from moral turpitude, I think we are entitled to express regret and some concern that it is not possible to secure that whatever information is contained in these Estimate should first be made available to hon. Members of the House before it is made available to the "Daily Mail" and other papers outside. I hope that stricter control will be kept in regard to this matter, in order to check the garrulity of persons who should hold their peace for a few hours longer.
I now come to matters of substance which were dealt with in the right hon. Gentleman's address. He referred, first of all, to the merits of airships as against aeroplanes. Several of my hon. Friends behind me have spent a considerable amount of time and study on this technical matter, and I do not propose to attempt to forestall what they may have to say on the subject. But I understand that there is already running—and this may be said on behalf of the aeroplane as against the airship—between New York and San Francisco a day and night aeroplane service, and I am told that it is running highly efficiently and with great regularity. If that be so, it would seem that we ought, at any rate, not to give up hope that we can achieve regularity in long distance flights by means of aeroplanes if airship communication should present those difficulties which some of my hon. Friends consider that it does present. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about subsidies to civil aircraft, and he expressed the hope that before long civil aviation would become self-supporting. I hope that he is watching carefully, in the interests of the taxpayer, the way in which those organisations which receive the subsidies are organised and conducted and concerning which there have been rumours of extravagance. In connection with Imperial Airways, for example, it is rumoured that their staff is on a somewhat large scale at Croydon. I merely quote these as rumours, and I do not associate myself with them. I hope the Air Ministry is continually watching to see that these subsidies are really being well expended and are not being to any extent frittered away on unnecessary and grandiose details.
I have acquired the impression, partly through my membership of the Estimates Committee and partly through common talk, that there is a tendency to do things on a very lavish scale in the Air Force. It has been said that the Army do themselves moderately well, that the Navy do themselves very well, and that the Air Ministry do themselves very well indeed. That is the common impression. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman recognises the importance of keeping a continual watch upon what I might call frills and unnecessary elements in expenditure. I am sure we were all very glad to hear what he said about a reduction in the proportion of fatal accidents to flying hours, but he will agree that fatal accidents are still much too frequent and that a very great deal still remains to be done in order to safeguard the lives of some of the best and most gallant members of the community to which we belong from any unnecessary risk. We were glad to hear that research has been actively proceeded with in order to attain that end. Then the right hon. Gentleman spoke of the increase in the Military Air Force, and, as to that, I shall have another word to say later on. It will also be dealt with in an Amendment that will be moved later on in the Debate. With regard to the expenditure, I notice on page 2 of the White Paper that, although some decrease can be shown this year, it appears that that means that in future years there will be a more than proportionate increase. That is at least what I take the following sentence to mean:
Of the gross decrease of £851,000 about £500,000 is found under Vote 1 (Works and Buildings). The slowing down of the expansion of the Royal Air Force and in the provision of permanent accommodation has its maximum effect on this Vote in the coming year.
I take it that that means that in future years there will be almost automatic expansions, and, consequently, the right hon. Gentleman must not take too much credit for showing us a decrease this year if it is to be obtained by means of making increases in the future.
He spoke about Iraq and no doubt this question will be further discussed later in the Debate. Iraq is evidently a land with troubled frontiers, but I notice the right hon. Gentleman did not say much about this in his speech. I
notice, however, a statement here that six Iraq cadets are at Cranwell being trained. I hope that that is an indication that the time is not very far away when Iraq will be able to undertake its own defence at its own expense, and that the flying necessary to be done for the defence of Iraq will be done by natives of Iraq. Possibly later on, the Parliamentary Secretary, when he replies to the Debate, may give us a little more information as to how soon it is hoped to train sufficient Iraq cadets to man any flying force stationed in that country. I also noticed, in a speech of Sir William Birdwood, reported in the Press, I think, yesterday, that it is proposed by the Government of India to send Indian cadets to Cranwell to be trained. Possibly we may be able to obtain some information as to whether it is yet known when this scheme will start, and how soon and how fast Cranwell can absorb cadets from India. The right hon. Gentleman made a reference to the relations and contacts between universities and the Air Force. That put into my mind an incident which occurred, I think, last year when it was proposed to have at the beginning of the May week celebrations at Cambridge an exhibition of the bombing of a native village. Owing, however, to the protests which came from many quarters both in Cambridge and from outside, and including the Vice-Chancellor of the University, that project was very properly abandoned, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman can assure us that in future it will not be found necessary to stimulate contacts between Oxford and Cambridge and the Air Force by providing demonstrations of this character.
Two general reflections suggest themselves to me in connection with these Estimates. The first is, that one cannot but admire the tremendous progress in adventure, enterprise, and daring which is going on in regard to air communications. It is one of the most amazing things in the scientific life of this age. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] The hon. Members on the other side who applaud that statement will, I hope, also agree with me when I say that it is amazing to contemplate the maldistribution of scientific achievement which is taking place at the present time. We have so much in the air and so little
on the ground; so much in the air and so little, in particular, the coalfields and in other basic industries. The enormous progress of which we are capable is illustrated by this State-aided enterprise, by this great public enterprise organised by a Department of State in Whitehall. When we see how much is possible, the drive and determination which are put behind achievements of this kind, we can only draw the moral that tremendous things could be achieved in other spheres if they were equally desired by those who control the destinies of this country.
My second general reflection is this, and I come back to the question of the increase in the military force. I come also to the frontiers of the discussion which will take place later on on the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham South (Mr. Barnes). Therefore, I will touch only lightly upon this matter. I ask myself for what purpose has the right hon. Gentleman doubled, as he told us, the size of the military Air Force since 1922; for what purpose does this military Air Force exist? Why is there this continued increase in the number of squadrons and this continued increase in the one weapon in the whole range of modern weapons which is mainly useful for offensive purposes. He told us nothing this afternoon as to whether we had yet made any discovery of a defensive aerial weapon. On previous occasions he has told us that if an aeroplane of some foreign country should endeavour to bomb London by night our only response would be that we should send aeroplanes to bomb them in return. Cold comfort both for Londoners and those living in the foreign capitals! Since he told us nothing about the development of new defence weapons, it remains, I suppose, as true to-day as it did on previous occasions, that, great though our scientific progress in the air has been, we have yet completely failed to develop any technical device of a purely defensive character against hostile aeroplanes. I do not know whether there is much collaboration between the heads of the various fighting departments in His Majesty's Government with regard to policy, but I have been reading also the Memorandum of the First Lord of the Admiralty. It is the corresponding Memorandum to that which is under discussion this afternoon. I find in the
First Lord's Memorandum a statement which, if it be true, has application also to the air no less than to the sea. The First Lord of the Admiralty says:
In the preparation of these Estimates, the continued placidity of the general Naval situation has been constantly in our minds, and many important services have either been deferred entirely or are being provided at a leisurely rate which the expectation of a prolonged period of peace alone warrants.
The First Lord of the Admiralty anticipates a long period of peace, and bases his Estimates upon that expectation. Does the right hon. Gentleman the Air Minister anticipate a long period of peace?

Sir S. HOARE: indicated assent.

Mr. DALTON: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman does. If he contemplates a prolonged period of peace, why does he ask the taxpayer to pay for four new squadrons, and why does he claim that he has had to slow down the rate of development which he would otherwise have regarded as desirable? If he looks forward to a long period of peace, then I cannot imagine why the right hon. Gentleman cannot accept, at any rate, the first part of the Amendment which is to be moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham South. I forbear from trenching upon that topic.
We on this side of the House view with grave concern the continued growth of offensive forces in the air. We view it with grave concern not only in this country but in other countries which, likewise, are increasing their Air Forces. We regret that the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon, while he indulged in many interesting, stimulating and encouraging talks, did not hold out any hope of disarmament this year, and he is not, apparently, seeking to reduce in the years that lie before us the burden which is resting on the taxpayers of this country for the purpose of building up military forces in a period when, according to his own admission, he fears no war and anticipates no enemy.

Captain GUEST: For three years in succession I have had the pleasure of listening to the introduction of the Air Estimates by my right hon. Friend. I have had great expectations, which were encouraged by the way in which he and
his staff have appeared to grapple with the problems which face them; but I must admit that to-day I was very much disappointed. I, like others, was nearly charmed into silence by the persuasive and delightful manner in which we were led over the alluring paths of aviation, but I must pull myself together and return to the attack. I felt a lack of reality in the statement of my right hon. Friend, and a failure to present to the House the real inner meaning of the deep underlying responsibility which rests on the Air Force itself. By that, I mean that it is a Department of dynamite over which my right hon. Friend presides, and he presents it to the House as though it were a chocolate cream. I do not believe that the House has been really and truly informed of the development of the science and of the increased menace that this weapon may become if improperly handled; nor has the House been properly informed as regards the foundations upon which the Air Force rests, or fails to rest. I think the comparisons between our activities and the activities of other countries ought certainly not to have been avoided. We must consider machines and pilots in our comparison, and there must be a comparison between our activities and the activities of other nations; otherwise, we cannot get a standard by which to judge ourselves.
There are a few questions which I should like to address to the Secretary of State. First of all, with regard to the money. I make no complaint about the size of the Estimates. I am glad to see that there are to be two more squadrons for India, particularly as that will give us a better chance of seeing how the use of the Air arm can reduce the number of mounted or foot troops. I am glad to see that there are to be two more flights added to the Navy. That will show to what extent the Air arm may save the taxpayers in regard to cruisers and such like vessels. A further question to which I would like an answer on the military side, is what has been the experience that the Air Force has gained in remote parts of the world where it is functioning as a military police, in Iraq during the last 12 months, for instance? Nothing has been said about that. The newspapers are full of what is going on there. A great deal of service
has been undertaken by the Air Force in the last 12 months of which I should like to be informed. What comparisons can be made between the work done in Iraq and the work done in Waziristan in 1925? To what extent has that development been satisfactory or unsatisfactory? What has the Secretary of State for War to tell us of what he saw of the co-operation between the Air Force and the Army in India? What experiments have been made and with what result with smoke clouds in the air and gas clouds from the air? What have the Navy to say about some of the manœuvres in which these gas clouds have been used and experimented in?
These questions bring me to the two main considerations which I think should be placed before the country. In the first place, can the Air Force replace the older and more expensive arms, namely, the Navy and the Army, with equal safety to the citizen and with advantage to the taxpayer? That is one of two big problems that must be studied by this House, and it is on that subject that I would have liked to have much more guidance from the Secretary of State than we have had to-day. Secondly, to what extent are the joint staffs putting their heads together and working out these problems? Do they still meet round a table, neither of them prepared to give way to anyone, or are they prepared to see the problem from each other's point of view? Unless we do get a joint staff which can weigh up dispassionately the advance that science has made, and it is obvious that in this branch of the Service science has made the biggest strides, we shall miss the vital secrets which lie in this new weapon. Incidentally, it requires no alteration of the machinery of the Committee of Imperial Defence. It is a matter which requires to be closely watched by the civilian Ministers who are on the Board. If it is to be left too much to the trained specialist mind, I fear that the secrets which we are trying to find out will never see the light of day. The following is a problem which it is obvious the Board has to think out. I read somewhere that Marshal Foch had, sometime since the War, given a lecture to senior officers, and said:
I must impress upon you, gentlemen, to forget the last War; not to imagine that the next one will begin where that one
left off. The next one will be as completely different from the last as the last one was from the one before.
Unless we have a combined staff prepared to realise that the air fighting which took place over the lines was entirely due to the fact that the lines were there before the aeroplanes made their appearance on the battlefield, and that the next complication—call it war if you like—will not be fought over trenches, the truth will never be found. Equally, it seems to me true that contact between aeroplanes and fighting squadrons will only be by mutual consent or by accident. The policy on either side will, obviously, be not to attack the armed forces of the enemy, but to avoid them and make the best with this new weapon by striking the nerve centres of the civil population. These are the kind of problems that should be given to the Board for impartial investigation before you can decide upon the policy or even the amount of money required for the Service we are discussing this afternoon.
There is an axiom which has been held up as gospel truth in this Service for nearly 10 years, which I am absolutely convinced is wrong, and that is that, first of all, civil aviation must be left to fly by itself, and, secondly, that the military side is in no way dependent upon the civil side. I submit that the military side will depend entirely upon the civil side. I have suggested that the nerve centres of the enemy will be the ones which will receive first attention. That, consequently, has changed the units of the fighting Service from 75 per cent. of fighters, which used to meet over the old trenches to 75 per cent. bombers. If we accept that, and I think we must, we see at once that an entirely different class of machine is needed for this long distance service and an entirely different type of trained pilot is needed for the work.
I may be asked, why is there a connection between the military side and the civil side? Why should the military side rest on the civil side? It is because these civil machines are convertible to a degree which was not possible five or six years ago. These machines can carry 20 passengers at 110 miles an hour, and are driven by the most experienced pilots as capable of flying by night as well as by day as any service pilot, and can be within
a week converted into bombing planes. If you have a lot of these ready at a moment's notice, surely you have a potential air force which can carry out the very duty which, I submit, is almost the first which it would have to undertake in case of war. I think the Secretary of State should have touched upon these problems and shown us that the proper balance between civil and military aviation is receiving constant and fresh consideration. The old shibboleths of the past have worn out entirely, because the demands made on the Air Force for offence and defence have entirely altered.
I ask hon. Members to consider whether really we can be so proud of ourselves in regard to our civil aviation activities. We are almost asked to pat ourselves on the back, because one new line is going to be run—I admit over difficult country—which will carry a certain number of mails, employ five or six machines, and eight or 10 pilots. That is not a big performance; and when you remember that the total number of our commercial machines is only 20, we have not much foundation for that reserve which will be necessary if any of my premises have any reality or truth. For a minute compare our position in this connection with that of our neighbours. I think we ought to do so. We do it in respect of our military forces, and why should we not do it in respect of our civil machines as well? Take the military side first. Our next door neighbour has 1,300 planes in full service commission. Three hundred of them I admit are in the North of Africa, but that is within flying distance of their own home bases. We have a total strength of 750, of which 270 are in India and Iraq, a very long way from home if troubles should break out. If it is entirely unsatisfactory on the military side, it is still more unsatisfactory when you compare our civil side with that of any other country. If you compare it with America you get a shock. It may be said that they have advantages in America, that it is an exceptional country, but, there are over 300 small companies running air services, and something like 3,000 or 4,000 privately owned machines. whereas in this country there are only 30 privately owned machines. There is a great disparity between the air sense of the people in America, the
determination of the people in America, and the people in this country.
Then, within 200 miles of London the activity which is going on in civil aviation is amazing. Hon. Members know and have probably visited the net work of air routes which has been built up in Germany during the last six or eight years, and if, as I submit, a civil machine is convertible within a week into a bombing plane, with much more deadly purposes, I do not see how this can go on without this House being informed of it and taking it into serious consideration. I will not say anything about the French civil aviation except this, that if France, who was hit very hard in the War finds herself able to provide a subsidy for civil aviation twice as big as our own, I do not understand how we can accept the position without some investigations, or indeed without some wonderment. Half of our subsidy of £260,000 is being taken for the Basra route; and all we have to live upon here is £130,000 a year. What Germany is spending we do not know, but they have an enormous number of machines which are flying every day and every hour. The Secretary of State referred to night flying, and I want to say how far we are behind other countries in this form of flying. In America there is a service which has been flown every day and night for the last two years between Chicago and San Francisco.
A friend of mine once made this journey and he told me that there was a well-organised landing ground every 24 miles except where they had to cross the mountains, which meant a gap of 30 or 40 miles. I asked him whether he was frightened, and he said. "No, we came down with the greatest ease, and our pilots seemed to have complete confidence." This service is carrying mails and passengers across the continent every night and day from Chicago to San Francisco in 23 hours instead of 3½ days.
Why do not we do something like this in this country? It is because we have not the money, or the stimulus and encouragement which should come from the Ministry. What would it cost if we developed all our Imperial air routes? A great deal might be made of the air route to South Africa, and there are an immense number of routes which could be made arteries of Imperial air activity.
I have been told by a very good authority that if we only had the courage to spend £3,000,000 over three years these routes could be equipped and running in that space of time. If you once got these routes in full activity you would have enough machines to supply you with the reserve power for defence which may be necessary.
I come now to a question which relates to officers. I was staggered when I heard the Secretary of state say that the short service system was a success. I submit that it has not proved a success at all. I am not blaming him. He has kept it going and I must be prepared to accept some of the blame myself, because I was at the Ministry when it was started. I want people however who are able to see when a system has been a failure not to be afraid to change it. I have heard many complaints in the last four years from short service officers who cannot get a job at all. Many are simply in the streets doing commissionaire's work at clubs. That is not a good system, and I say that we should change it. You may say, how are you going to get your officers if you do not do it in this way, as it is impossible to provide permanent careers, and that it is equally necessary to have some system whereby you will be able to get officers for the purposes of reserve. I have a suggestion to make to the Secretary of State, which I hope he will turn over in his mind. In the first place the civil air routes must be developed as speedily as possible, and with as many machines as are necessary to catch up with our neighbours.
My suggestion is this. At the present time a short service officer costs the State in the region of £2,000 a year. I do not think I am far wrong in that calculation. He flies for four or five years. About one per cent. get permanent commissions. I understand that about 150 have to leave the service every year and try to find a job in civil life. If they are unable to do this they are in a very sad state. I believe that the particular class of pilot which we need for these reserves, that is long distance bombing reserves, can be trained in another way and can remain as pilots not only for four years but for the 20 years between the ages of 20 and 40. This is my idea. Pay Airways, or whatever civil company you like to entrust it
to, £1,000 a year to take a young man of 22, train him for the purposes of commercial flying, but teach him perhaps a certain number of other things more than the ordinary pilot will learn, and then give him a holiday. Then for three months let him come back to a service squadron, and let that be his reserve training. If that was done you would in less than three years, presuming your air routes are thoroughly developed, have a method of keeping in permanent flying activity as big a reserve of pilots as you have now, and in a much more humane way, as an alternative to the short service commission.
I have put down this scheme very sketchily, but I think it is worthy of the consideration of the Secretary of State, and I hope he will turn it over before he turns it down. I implore the House not to think of me as an alarmist, because I take a practical view of this subject. I think we should ventilate time after time not only the good side of the Air Force but also the dire side of this newly developed service. The development is going on so fast that we cannot keep pace with it. We need agile minds, not sterotyped minds. Anyone who does not realise the great advance which science is making should be got rid of and those people who realise the possibilities of aviation and the way we are going should take their place. Unless this is done we shall be surpassed by all our neighbours. D'Annunzio found such a state of things in the Italian Air Force, so in a speech he said, "We should get a blacksmith and free the eagle from the Roman shield." We have had an Imperial reputation on land and sea. Let us have it in the air too. I hope the Secretary of State will prove to be an efficient blacksmith.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: We have heard a speech from the right hon. and gallant Member for Bristol North (Captain Guest) to which it will be very difficult for a private Member to reply. We must remember that it is a case of a former Secretary of State for Air asking questions from the present Secretary of State for Air, and it is not fit for me to butt into a battle of eagles. I am more like a wasp. I cannot help congratulating the right hon. and gallant Member for Bristol on the very good work he is doing to-day as the commander
of a reserve squadron. He is setting an example to many, for which he deserves the greatest credit. It is only a few years ago, from this actual place in the House; that I pleaded with the late Prime Minister (Mr. Bonar Law) for the inclusion of the Secretary of State for Air in the Cabinet. As Ministers go—and the trouble is most of them will not go—the present Secretary of State for Air has been a great success, and I have always congratulated myself that it was through my own eloquence that the Secretary of State for Air is in the Cabinet. But I have my own bone to pick with the right hon. Gentleman.
I want to know why it is that, after the promise made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer some years ago, we still are not allowed one day to debate national expenditure upon armaments in their entirety? Year after year goes by, and we have presented to us separate Estimates, which we have to examine in detail, and not one bearing upon another. There was a time undoubtedly when you could say that armament related either to the Army or to the Navy, and there was a line drawn clearly between the two, but to-day there is no possibility of any operation of a military type in which the Air would not play a part. If it were a great naval operation the Navy would have to be helped by the Air, and if a great Army operation the Army would have to be helped by the Air; and it is a possibility that there may be such a thing as an Air operation by itself. We have only a certain amount of money to spend on defence. Although it is true that this great question is probably debated very seriously by the Committee of Imperial Defence. I think the House has a right to ask for one day in which it can discuss the whole question of national defence to see whether the expenditure be wanted more for one service or another.
After having read the pamphlet of the Secretary of State I want to ask him what he is doing with regard to what I call the freedom of the air. Here we are situated in this glorious island, wishing to run services to various parts of our Empire, but always having to cross a foreign country in order to do it. Although there is, I believe, a sort of understood right that a civil machine
may cross the territory of another country, yet the country over which you are flying has the right to prescribe the route. That seems intolerable in these days of peace. It is intolerable to think that Persia can decide what route we are to take over her territory. What has Persia ever done to help aviation except to invent the magic carpet? Yet we are to be told that we are not allowed to go to India a certain way and that we have to go another way. It is high time that this great question of the freedom of the air, at all events for civil machines, was taken in hand by some international body, say the League of Nations, and that in that way this handicap on free transport was for ever freed.
May I say a word or two to the Secretary of State on the question of the trade? The trade in this country, upon which we have to rely for any sudden expansion in the Air, is dependent really, because of the lack of other orders, upon the Government. Yet there is a constant struggle between the military side and what I call the enterprising side of the Air Ministry. It is quite understandable that anyone running squadrons of the Air Force wants a standard machine. He does not want a lot of different machines, with the necessity of carrying about different parts. His idea of perfection is one machine which never changes and which no one will ever be able to beat. But as inventions and developments occur the only person who really can reward the inventor or firm is the Air Minister. I have a case in point. I will not mention firms, because I think it is a pity to give names in these Debates. There was one firm in England who outstandingly developed the all-metal machine. It may be very tiresome, from the Air Force point of view, to have to order that type of machine and include it in their squadrons, but the net result has been that, although this particular firm developed these machines, another firm has been given the orders along the lines of the firm with which the machine originated. I think that is extremely hard on those firms who are trying to get work through initiative. I know the difficulties of the Secretary of State, but I suggest that he must earmark a certain sum of money for the encouragement of those who invent new types of machines.
One word regarding metal construction as a whole. Metal construction to-day is chiefly wrapped up with aluminium. Although my hon. Friend the Arch-ohm the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Balfour) is not here to advise me, I understand it takes 2½ horse-power, working for a whole year, to make a ton of aluminium. Consequently, the supply of aluminium is strictly limited, and if it came to a need for quick expansion we could not get it. When we do turn to metal construction it is important that we should concentrate on steel, which is as strong after a certain size as any other metal in the world for its weight. I was delighted to hear that my right hon. Friend has got what I call a penchant for boats. I have pleaded the case of these flying boats before, but not with great success. We are now getting on in the boat line. I ask my right hon. Friend to look even further ahead, for to this country, as he has said, the flying boat is more important than to any other country in the world. We must let our imagination go right ahead in this matter. Our flying boats, although bigger than land machines, are not big enough to weather an ordinary sea in the Atlantic. It is time that we built a seaplane of enormous size. We have already got a land machine on the very big side. I have never seen the advantage of great land machines. Aerodromes are few and far between, whereas the sea is the most marvellous aerodrome in the world. It is certainly big enough. We ought to have seaplanes that will be able to sit out and weather a storm. I hope that before I am gathered to my fathers I shall see a really big seaplane, big enough to have a billiard room inside it—a really stable machine.
I will say a few words on civil flying. I know there are those who dislike the idea of a subsidy for civil aviation. I would point to a phase of the question which is not sometimes considered. In many parts of the Empire there are tracks of land which are not inhabited by English people, not because people would not go there to explore and develop the country, because the communications are impossible. It is impossible to live there, to take your wife there, because it is impossible to get from one place to another. There are many areas in the
Empire which are capable of enormous development. It is not fair to look upon the civil aviation lines which serve remote areas from the one standpoint of whether they pay or lose. We should take a wider view of the matter and say that the prosperity brought to a particular country by an air route should be on the credit side of the company that runs that service. No Empire in the world requires so much development in civil aviation. If we look at this question only from the point of view of the pounds, shillings and pence of the actual lines which run these services, we shall not go ahead as quickly as we should.
One final word to my right hon. Friend. He of all people lives a double life. He is a type of Jekyll and Hyde. On the one side he holds in his hand weapons of destruction, the like of which have never been seen since the world started. On the other hand he has great powers for peace, for construction and amity between nations—great powers for civilisation. He must exercise those powers more than the military side during the next few years. We plead with him to show imagination and to get this country, not solely on the war side but on the peace side, ahead of every country in the world. I warn him against the technician. I do not know how old I look, but I am a historical character in aviation: I have seen my name mentioned on the same page as Leonardo da Vinci. Although my right hon. Friend was a monitor at my school and I have always had a great respect for him, yet I hope he will take these words of advice. Let him not forget that at the beginning of aviation Lord Kelvin said that dynamic flying was impossible. I ask my right hon. Friend not to be put off if the technicians say that this is impossible or that is impossible. We are still at the beginning of the whole thing. We want imagination, more imagination and more imagination to get ahead, and the people who stifle development are the technicians at the
Air Ministry.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. ROSE: Since the historic occasion on which certain Members of this House held one of your illustrious predecessors, Mr. Speaker, in the Chair by physical force, there has been no occasion when that memorable precedent has been more justified than now. I do not think
that the House ought to grant these Estimates. The object of this discussion, I understand, is to decide whether the House should go into Committee for the purpose of granting certain specified sums for certain specified purposes. Later in the evening my hon. Friends on the Labour benches are to move a certain Resolution. I hasten to propitiate them by saying that I am determined to vote for that Resolution. I may add that I do so from emotional rather than intellectual promptings. Because I have said in this House for many years past now certain things about one particular item that is contained in these Estimates, namely, the item that is known as airship development, because I have consistently opposed this Vote, it is possible that a misapprehension may have arisen in the minds of some hon. Members that I am hostile to aviation. As a matter of fact I am nothing of the kind. I am a great believer in aviation's possibilities, and no one more than myself would like to see the Empire linked up and its component parts brought nearer together. What I do protest against is the idea that you are going to link up the Empire with goldbeaters' skin gas bladders. Of all the phases of aeronautical dementia, that known to the faculty as gasbagomania is the most virulent and the most malignant.
I should think that the people who have talked most about the possibilities of the airship are the people who have talked after dinner. With regard to the present airship scheme, I do not know whether right, hon. and hon. Members have forgotten or whether they have never known, but at the risk of telling them something they do know, and, in the case of those who do not know, something that will be new to them, may I be allowed to state a few facts? There was a scheme known as the Burney Airship Scheme, of which the hon. and gallant Member for Uxbridge (Commander Burney) was said to be the author. It was produced in 1923, and tacitly accepted by the right hon. Gentleman who was Minister of Air at that time. It proposed to build six monster airships—capacity unstated—at a cost of £4,600,000, to be spread over a certain number of years in the form of subsidy
and direct payment. The Government of the day went out of office, and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition came in, and one of the first things his Government had to do was to consider the Burney scheme. They turned it down—or thought they did—and for it they substituted the present scheme. Parliament was then solemnly assured that the whole scheme, including two airships, one to be built at Cardington under State auspices, and one to be built at Howden under private enterprise, together with the necessary air sheds, mooring masts, depots, gas plant and so forth, would cost no more than £1,200,000. The time allotted was three years.
That was in 1924 and I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to these figures. On account of this scheme, Parliament granted in 1924, £200,000; in 1925, £440,000; in 1926, £332,000; in 1927, £362,000; and we are now asked for 1928 to grant a further sum of £380,000, making a total of £1,714,000. There is an additional £160,000—apart from the first £200,000 I have mentioned—which is in respect of payment to the Airship Guarantee Company, so that the total cost to the nation, when the present Estimate has been passed and spent—if it has not been spent already—will be £1,874,000. The time was to be three years. During the Debate in 1924, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) put a question to Mr. Leach, then Parliamentary Secretary to the Air Ministry, asking what was the time limit for the scheme? Mr. Leach said it would be three years at the outside, but he was confident that it would be finished in less. Thus, three years was the period then named to cover the building of the ships, the provision of the necessary accessories and the trials. In three years the ships were to be in service. It is now four years since that statement was made and let us see where we are. In the White Paper, which the right hon. Gentleman has issued, he makes this comment in reference to the Cardington Airship:
The main girder work for R.101 (which is being built at the Royal Airship Works at Cardington) is being manufactured by Messrs. Boulton and Paul, Limited, of Norwich. Certain difficulties arising out of the novelty of the design have caused a
delay but the manufacture is now approximately 60 per cent. complete.
That is four years after Parliament has sanctioned this scheme. What are we to say to such a state of things? How can the right hon. Gentleman have the temerity to come to this House and ask for more money to carry on this fantastic folly. I wish to say something generally about this particular form of dementia. Lord Thomson, who was Air Minister in 1924, caught the complaint in a very malignant and virulent form. He saw visions. Here is one of them:
They will take a pay-load as big as that of an ordinary train across lofty mountain ranges.
According to the figures of the right hon. Gentleman the pay-load of one of these ships, of 5,000,000 cubic feet displacement, is under 20 tons. Therefore, to take a pay-load such as described, across lofty mountain ranges, would require a ship of 35,000,000 cubic feet displacement. It seems to me that Lord Thomson, in 1924, only negotiated one distinguished eminence—Snowden—for, by some means, he induced my right hon. Friend the Member Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) to fork out £200,000. But Lord Thomson had another vision. I ask the House to listen to this:
In fancy one can see them floating like monstrous insects over a hostile land while from their flanks, winged offspring would emerge like angry wasps, to fight defending aeroplanes or to rain death and destruction from the skies. An air encounter between two fleets of these aerial mammoths can be more easily imagined than described.
Rather!
No conflict on land or sea could approach it in terror or sublimity.
If the Noble Lord had made this pronouncement one night after dinner, we could have attributed it to post-prandial exuberance, and said no more about it. But he wrote it down and caused it to be published in a printed book. It has been said:
Oh that mine adversary had written a book.
I have written books myself, to the dismay and despair of my few friends, and the exultant delight of an ever-increasing circle of enemies. I do not want to pursue or even to accompany Lord Thomson in his entomological researches.
The quality of mercy is not strained
and so I pass on. Another eminent technical authority has made a statement in reference to this matter, namely, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Dominions. In this House he said:
Not six but 60 or 600 commercial airships with all the apparatus of masts, bases and sheds developed in the ordinary way of commerce."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th May, 1924; col. 507, Vol. 174.]
I wonder whether these eminent technicians have read the subject up at all. This is more or less a financial Debate. We are not to go into technique; rather are we to stick to the finances of the question. May I ask, did it ever occur to the right hon. Gentleman that 600 of these vessels at current prices would cost £182,000,000 for ship construction only? Is that how it is proposed to link up the Empire? Apart from that, you would want hundreds of air sheds, thousands of mooring masts and many hundreds of gas plants. The total cost in running expenses, operating charges and maintenance for two years—at the end of which time all your ships would be out of existtence—would be a sum of money which could very comfortably liquidate the National Debt, big as it is. That is the sort of nonsense talked to the people of this country and to this House of Commons, by great statesmen, who, surely, ought to know better if they know anything at all. Let us see what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to say. This is what the right hon. Gentleman wrote:
I rated the Zeppelin much lower as a weapon of war than almost anyone else ….In 1915, I gave orders that our only rigid experimental ship should be scrapped and the plant broken up. Had I had my way no airships would have been built by Great Britain during the War (except the little Blimps for teasing submarines). After I left the Admiralty, this policy was reversed and £40,000,000 was squandered by successive Boards in building British Zeppelins—not one of which on any occasion ever rendered any effective fighting service.
These six ships are not for fighting; they are for commercial service, but the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke words of wisdom. I do not mean to say that they were characteristic, but they show that, at least one Member of His Majesty's Government, had, at some period in his amazing career, a lucid interval. But what about the commercial capacity of these airships?
First let me refer briefly to their flying possibilities. We were told in the first place, that these were to be sister ships—that the Howden authorities and the Cardington authorities were mutually and amiably picking each others brains. As a matter of fact, the two ships are not alike. They are not the same length, nor the same diameter. We are told that certain things are being done at Cardington which are not being done at the other place, and certain things are being done at the other place that obviously are not being done at Cardington.
The one wise thing that Lord Thomson's administration of the Air Ministry did was to tell off one of the ships, R.36, for mooring-mast experiments in the tropics. I put it to the commonsense of Members of this House: Was that not an essential, a vital essential? Who knows anything of the behaviour of lighter-than air ships, filled with hydrogen gas, in a tropical climate? But after spending £13,000 on reconditioning that ship, the arrangement was all cancelled, and the ship, I suppose, is somewhere, in some hangar—I know not where. The Air Ministry to-day is proposing to send the Cardington ship to Egypt without the slightest knowledge of how she will behave, and although these ships were designed, or assigned, at all events, to the tropical service, one of them is going only across the Atlantic now. I wonder why those experiments, so essential and so necessary, were abandoned. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman why. It was because he dared not make them. The prodigious expansion and contraction that will almost certainly occur in these ships under the constant variations of temperature in the tropics, or at least in Egypt, make it absolutely impossible for them to be of use, because hydrogen gas will not behave as you want it to behave; it will do what it likes.
Let me get back to the financial aspect of the question. There is one man in this world who knows more about airships and airship construction and possibilities than do the right hon. Gentleman and all his experts, and his name is Eckener. Dr. Eckener is the person upon whose shoulders has fallen the mantle of the late Count Zeppelin, and this is what he says—and remember that his living
depends upon it, so that he is sure to say the best that he can about it:
Construction has so far advanced that airships can be built to-day to have 15 tons of paying load."—
Let the House remember that paying load, or commercial load, is the only load that counts—
Calculated on the basis of a service employing three large airships and an average of 100 trips a year, 50 each way, each single voyage would cost £10,000.
In other words, the operational cost alone would be at the rate of nearly £700 per ton, including in this tonnage passengers, freight, and mails. If the concern were established on a commercial basis, the revenue, according to Dr. Eckener, should be £15,850 per single voyage. Reckoning for full load, the rate charged would have to be £1,200 per ton, or 8d. per ounce. So much for the financial possibilities.
I want now to call attention to something that happened last year. Speaking in Committee on this particular Vote, the right hon. Gentleman challenged me to go down to Cardington to see how they were getting on. When I asked him for a date, he said the preliminary was that I must pledge myself to secrecy with regard to technical details. Well, I knew all about it except the technical details, and I knew most of them, and all that I did not know then I have got out of the right hon. Gentleman by questions since. Let me warn the right hon. Gentleman against flinging out challenges. We old fellows are apt to be a little reminiscent sometimes. Once, when I was much younger and when my temper was less mild and accommodating than it is now, I had a row with a chap. He annoyed me, so I said, "Come outside," never imagining for a moment that he would be mean enough to do it. I expected him to say he would fight me another time, but that that night he had promised to stop at home and mind the baby while his wife went to the pictures, or something of that sort. Instead of that, he came out with alacrity and also with a certain amount of physical vigour which was exceedingly disconcerting. I prefer to draw a veil over the subsequent proceedings, but I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I have never issued another invitation of that kind from that day to this.
I wonder why the right hon. Gentleman wanted me sworn to secrecy. I know that one of the best ways to catch a bird—at least, a very wise woman told me so—is to put a bit of salt on its tail, but a profounder ornithological study and a vital experience have shown me that it is only very young and very callow birds that are amenable to that method of capture. Maturer specimens are usually a bit quicker on the uptake, so I did not go to Cardington. That is why, and I do not want to go to Cardington. I want to tell the right hon. Gentleman this, however, and I am not going to challenge him at all. He has admitted to-night that these ships are not going to fly this year.

Sir S. HOARE: indicated dissent.

Mr. ROSE: He has admitted, at least, that he expects that by this time next year they will be ready. I hope they will, but what I would like to see the right hon. Gentleman do is this: When 400, 500, or 600 men lug the stupid thing out of the hole in which they have been building it, let him load it with sufficient petrol, oil and ballast for a 4,000 mile voyage. Do not put anybody alive on it—that would be cruel—but put on it the weight of a crew of 140 or 150 persons, with their baggage, food, drink, beds, and bedding, and that ship will weigh 28 tons more than her gross lift, and the pay load lift, according to the right hon. Gentleman, is 20 tons. Here is a very simple calculation. The Howden ship is to cost £300,000, although it has cost a bit more than that already, and the Cardington ship is to cost £400,000, so that the gross lift of the Howden ship is being constructed at £2,000 per ton, and the Cardington ship is being constructed for £2,666 per gross ton, but the pay load is only 20 tons, according to the right hon. Gentleman's own figures. Therefore, the Howden ship is to cost £15,000 per pay load ton and the Cardington ship nearly £20,000 per pay load ton, and what sort of tariff for freights and passengers is the right hon. Gentleman going to charge?
The one thing that these experts have not done is to calculate, not only the possibilities, but what they can do with the possibilities. Nobody is going to dispute that you can lift 150 tons with 5,000,000 cubic feet displacement, but that
150 tons includes all fixed weights and three-fifths of the disposal lift as well, and the only thing that counts in a commercial ship or vehicle of any sort is what its passengers and freighters are going to pay for the transport of themselves or their goods. That is exactly where it stands. It does not matter what the right hon. Gentleman's technical advisers say; there is a physical law which says that all that you can lift is 16 times the weight of any given quantity or volume of hydrogen gas. All the technique in the world will not alter that fact, and I want to suggest this to the House: However much they may agree with developing aviation, civil or military, let them be warned against any further airship construction, and let the right hon. Gentleman remember that, whatever his experts say, he is clean right up against a dead end. This thing is commercially impossible and technically ridiculous. It has no foundation either in science or in practice, and all that I want to see is, not that aviation or its progress and development shall be retarded in any degree, but that these bubbles shall be pricked before they involve, not merely the loss of a couple of million pounds sterling—we are rich people, with not many taxes to pay, and what do a few millions matter to us?—but that monetary loss magnified by the loss of precious and gallant human life.

Mr. BUCHAN: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Rose) into the shady paths to which he has shown the way; it would lead me too far from the subject of Debate. I desire to add my congratulations to those which the right hon. Gentleman has received. During the year, steady and enlightened progress has been made in the organisation of the Service, especially in those branches of scientific research which are its background. The Service has been highly economical. As compared with the Estimates last year, these Estimates show a greater absolute reduction than any other Service, and a far greater proportion of reduction considering the amount of the sums involved. The economical mind in a Minister is not a blessing to be lightly decried, but in adding my congratulations to those of other hon. Members on that score, I do it with a divided mind. I cannot help asking the question which my hon.
and gallant Friend the Member for Chatham (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) has asked, and wondering whether our defence problem is really being considered as a whole to-day, or whether it is still in watertight compartments. We are spending annually £120,000,000 in defence. That is the insurance premium we are paying for a measure of security. I call it a measure of security, for, obviously, security cannot be complete and all the risks cannot be insured against, as that would involve a premium far beyond our national purse. Therefore, we must be very certain that this imperfect security, for which we are paying a high premium, really covers the vital necessities of our defence.
What are those necessities? The War, which established the Air Force, has taught us many lessons. It compelled us to modify the old Napoleonic maxim about seeking out the enemy's forces wherever they are to be found and destroying them. That maxim really belongs to an old world, when the nation was not the intricate organism that it is to-day. I fancy that to-day most people would revise that maxim, and say that the object of war was to break the enemy's moral and to break his will to resist at the lowest cost to ourselves. Cost is a vital matter. Our experience since the Armistice has taught us how vital an element cost is in any victory. Like everybody, I hope the day may come in my lifetime when the risk of war will be enormously diminished, and ultimately cast away. But that day is not yet and in the meantime we must prepare for possible war. One thing is very certain: any war of the future will not be a mere bludgeoning thing, not a mere contest of brute force to be won by the largest weight of men and material; it will be a far subtler thing, for it will be directed towards the nerve centres of the opposing peoples.
That is exactly where the importance of the Air Force comes in. It is directed especially towards nerve centres. The more intricate a civilisation becomes, the more brittle it becomes, the more easily you can destroy the machine by damaging some small, vital part. No one but a lunatic can welcome the air as a new theatre of contest. As Sir Hugh
Trenchard said at Cambridge, one would be glad if the air could be abolished, but it is there and we cannot get rid of it. The air is the most vital point of our problem of defence. However you may picture any future war, it seems pretty certain that the first stage will be a conflict in the air for the mastery of the air. Suppose in such a war that the contest went against Britain, what would happen? The mobilisation of any expeditionary force would be hopelessly crippled; the whole initial activities of our Army and Navy would be handicapped; the intricate task of providing munitions, and the whole of the food services of the nation would be imperilled. That is why the Air Force, and the whole question of the air in any scheme of defence, is so vital. It is almost certain that the first bout would be in the air, and on the result of that contest would depend any future success by land or water. That is not my private speculation. It is the view of most students of war on the Continent, and it is the view of an increasing number of people in this country. When I turn to the Air Estimates, I find that the Home Defence Force—it is really an Imperial Defence Force—has not been increased by one single squadron, in spite of its admitted inadequacy, as compared with the fighting strength of several foreign powers.
The second point that I want to put before the House is that the Air Force provides a real means of economising in military, defence. It provides a means of undertaking the guardianship of savage frontiers and of policing remote uncivilised countries, thereby displacing much more expensive military garrisons and a certain type of naval craft. Therefore, it stands to reason that, if we want to economise, the air is the real sphere of economy. There is another point connected with economy, which I hope will commend itself to hon. Members opposite. The initial cost of defence in the air is much lower than the initial cost in either the Army or the Navy, and it can be reduced without so great a wastage of national assets. We all hope that the time may come when it will be possible drastically to reduce British armaments owing to some international agreement—a reduction consistent with perfect security. But there is a disinclination to scrap readily what is costly. There is a
bias in human nature against reducing that which costs a great deal of money, and, therefore, the more we can entrust our defence to the comparatively uncostly mechanism of the air, the easier it will be to disarm. There is one further point connected with economy. The Army in a high degree, and the Navy in a less degree, are divorced from the ordinary economic life of this country. The money spent on them, in a narrow view, is economic waste, however justified it may be on other grounds, but the air remains close to our economic life. Civilian and military air work go hand in hand. The Air Service teaches a large number of young men a multitude of crafts, which are most valuable in civil life; far less is it a dead end, and there is far less gross wastage than in any other service.
If I am right in these views, it would seem that it is our business to hand over to the Air Force other duties of Imperial defence which it can reasonably manage. It has already taken over many. It has done admirable and most economic work in Iraq, on the Indian frontier, and in Somaliland. In the case of Iraq, before the Air Force took over the defence of that province from the Army, the cost to the British taxpayer was £22,000,000. In the first year under the Air Force that cost sank to £7,000,000. In the current year it is down to £2,750,000. A very large part of military defence can be economically conducted from the air, provided you have proper air bases up and down the Empire. Every year we are improving our machinery for this purpose. We have now got the flying boats. Everyone was interested in the recent successful flight of four flying boats to Singapore. These boats passed over a great extent of desert country between the Mediterranean and Iraq. Most people in the past have thought of the flying boat as a purely marine kind of aircraft, but it has proved its usefulness for land purposes many hundreds of miles from the sea wherever there are inland lakes or rivers. In the Air Estimates we provide for this class only two new units. I should like to have seen at least four new units provided in a class, the value of which has been so abundantly proved.
In these circumstances, I am bound to regard with a little disquiet the otherwise
praiseworthy economy of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air. The Air Force at this moment, as far as I can calculate, receives 16 per cent. of the total defence Vote. That is to say, it gets rather less than half what the Army gets, and only about one-third what the Navy gets. That 16 per cent. includes the expenditure upon the Flight Air Arm, which does not appear in the Air Estimates at all. In the last three years the Air Estimates have been steadily declining. In 1926 they were 2 per cent, lower than in 1925, 6 per cent. less in 1927, and in the current year they are 10 per cent. less than the 1925 figure. That might be very well if the responsibilities of the Air Force were declining, or even if they were stationary, but they are increasing every year. This year Aden has been taken on.
The amount of money spent in the Air Force is small and out of all proportion to the responsibilities laid upon it. I should have thought that the Army and the Navy Estimates would have come down heavily, and the natural thing would have been for the Air Estimates to increase, but the opposite is the case. This year the Air Estimates show a greater absolute reduction than those of any other service, and a far greater proportionate reduction, and this in spite of the new responsibilities the service has taken on overseas, in spite of the cost of new buildings in this country for this extended service, and in spite of the large expenditure upon more expensive craft to replace old war-time types. That is why I congratulate my right hon. Friend with a somewhat divided mind. I should like to be assured that he is really satisfied that he is not running any undue risk. I should like to feel that the total insurance premium for defence is really being laid out in the best possible way. I should like to be certain that our defence problem is being considered as a whole. I believe most firmly in a single, unified Air Service, but I believe not less firmly in a single, unified defence system, under which the total expenditure will be allocated to the really vital purposes, and a system, moreover, which can be readily and economically contracted in the event of a limitation of armaments by international agreement, which I, in company with other hon. Members, would gladly help forward.

Rear-Admiral SUETER: I am very glad the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. Buchan) has taken part in one of our Air Debates, and I agree with him in almost everything he has said. I should like to congratulate the Secretary of State for Air on the very able manner in which he has presented his Estimates to us this year, but I am sorry that he has not added to the home defence squadrons. They were approved by Parliament in 1923, and the scheme provided for a modest expansion, and I think he ought to fill out those squadrons as soon as he possibly can. We have heard some alarming figures from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Bristol (Captain Guest), and I would ask the Air Minister whether he could not give us a return similiar to the Dilke Return of naval ships. We do not ask that there should be anything confidential in it, but it should show the number of squadrons available for the defence of the homeland and also the squadrons abroad, and the machines should be divided into aeroplanes, seaplanes and airships; and he might also consider whether we could not have the machines available for commercial work added to that list and compared with those belonging to foreign countries. I think everyone in the country would be relieved to see these figures set out, so that we might understand the true position of the Air Force of this country in relation to foreign countries. During the Debate on the Address one hon. Member said that while the Navy economised and the Army economised, the Air Force did not economise. I have looked up the figures, and I think the House would like to learn that the Air Service has economised more than either of the other two Services. The figures according to my calculations, based on gross estimates, are roughly as follow: As compared with 1925, the Navy Estimates showed a reduction of just over 3 per cent. in 1926, or just over 2 per cent. in 1927, and of rather less than 5 per cent. in 1928. The corresponding figures for the Army showed reductions of 3½ per cent., 6 per cent., and a little over 9 per cent. The figures for the Air Force showed reductions of 2 per cent., 6 per cent., and rather more than 10 per cent. Those figures prove that the hon. Member's criticism was unwarranted, and I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman
upon economising to that extent, although I do not agree with many of his economies.
Mention has been made of the long-distance flight of the four flying-boats which went out to Singapore. That was a very fine achievement of Wing-Commander Cave-Brown-Cave, and he and his crews deserve to be heartily congratulated on their performance. In connection with the subject of long-distance flights I would like to say a word about Atlantic flights. I would ask the Air Minister whether he and the Aero Club cannot control people who want to fly the Atlantic? We ought to have a doctor's certificate respecting any man or woman who wants to fly the Atlantic, and this certificate ought not to be six months or 12 months old, but issued as the result of an examination made just before they are going to fly. Could not the Minister arrange, also, that aircraft which are to fly the Atlantic, should be made to carry a fabric float-box, or kites, or wireless telegraphy equipment—all three if possible? Such supervision is necessary. Then, if they have to make a forced landing, there will be a chance of saving the crew from disaster. I would very much like the Air Minister to look into that question, and see whether he cannot come to some arrangement with the Aero Club about it. The Air Minister made a reference to slotted wings, and said he hoped they would prevent accidents. I, too, hope that Mr. Handley Page's great invention will prevent accidents, but I would like to ask the Air Minister how we are to control slotted wings in high altitude flying, and whether any mechanical device to do that is being prepared, and also any device for use when machines are taking off in a high wind. Are the Research Department of the Ministry looking into this question of controlling slotted wings? A means of control would help fliers tremendously.
I wish to refer once again to Farnborough. Farnborough is getting away with too much money. Farnborough is always nibbling. Every year Farnborough gets a little more and a little more. I have asked in this House before whether we get quite enough out of Farnborough in return. I believe that all at Farnborough work hard and do well, but I would like an assurance from the Air Minister that the increase from
£390,000 to £407,000 is fully justified, and I hope that when the Under-Secretary of State replies he will be able to tell us there is no waste of money going on at Farnborough. The Air Minister ought to keep a closer watch on the Farnborough expenditure, and try to keep it down more. I am sorry the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Rose) is not in his place, because I wanted to reply to his observations about airships. He gave us a damning account of airships, but it was all stale. We have heard it so often. From the days when I was supervising the building of the first naval rigid airship at Barrow, in 1909 to 1911, we have heard that same sort of condemnation of airships. The hon. Member for North Aberdeen says the airship is a fantastic folly.

Mr. DUNCAN: So was the Barrow experiment.

7.0 p.m.

Rear-Admiral SUETER: An hon. Member says, "So was the Barrow experiment." When the "Mayfly" was wrecked I showed a distinguished Admiral the wreck. He had never seen an airship before, and he remarked, "The work of a lunatic." People in the Press, like the hon. Member for North Aberdeen, said the airship would never fly, was useless and a rotten experiment. They had their way, and no more airships of the rigid type were built. What was the consequence? During the War the Germans had Zeppelins keeping the whole of the North Sea under observation. Whenever we made a sweep with our battleships or cruisers we could find nothing, but a couple of Zeppelins told the Germans where our Fleet was. Whenever we laid a mine field, the German Zeppelins went out and located it, and every mine was swept up. That was the work of the lunatics! The morning after the battle of Jutland there were German airships in the air. They signalled to Admiral Scheer the position of the groups of the British Fleet. The British Fleet, on their part, were ignorant of the whereabouts of the vessels of the German Fleet, and consequently the German Fleet got away. That was the work of lunatics!
I feel that the Air Minister and Lord Thomson are to be congratulated most warmly on taking up the airship experiment once more, and trying to bring
about success. We have only got to look at what is happening in America. There, a big, rigid airship "Los Angeles" recently made a trip to sea, and when 90 miles off the coast she landed on the deck of a carrier, re-fuelled and went back again. That shows what great voyages will be possible with airships in the future. Further, the "Los Angeles" had lately done a trip of 4,000 miles from New Jersey right down to the Panama Canal. She worked round there, went on to Cuba, tied up to the mooring mast of a patrol vessel, and then went back to New Jersey. There was a successful trip of 4,000 miles, and yet hon. Members in this House and many people in the country speak of the work of lunatics! I hope the Air Ministry will continue this work and try to bring airships to complete success. The builders and officials concerned deserve congratulation on the manner in which they have set about producing a really satisfactory airship. They are not hurrying the work, everything in connection with it is being tried out, and I hope their efforts will be crowned with great success when the vessel is completed.
Leaving airships, I want to say a word about the Schneider Cup. I saw the Schneider Cup race in Venice this year. To see that youngster, Webster, flying a machine at a speed of nearly five miles a minute was a very fine sight. Some 250,000 people watched that race, and were very much interested in it, and I do hope the Air Minister will give every support to the Schneider Cup race next year, so that we may arouse the interest of a great many people here. I should also like to congratulate the constructors of the winning machine in that great race. In his references to civil aviation the Minister told us that he was going to have a service to Delhi in seven days and a service to Calcutta in nine days. Is he going to do anything to develop flying in the West Indies, in British Guiana, Singapore, and all round there; and will he tell us how the Kenya-Khartum route is getting on, and also tell us about any other developments, because I think he ought to extend his air influence as far as possible? One other point with which I wish to deal has already been touched upon slightly by the hon. Member for the Scottish
Universities and the hon. and gallant Member for Chatham (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon). Taking the Army, Navy and Air Estimates together, we find that in 1927 we had £115,115,000 allocated for the defence forces. Of that, the Army took £41,575,000, the Navy £58,000,000, and the Air Force £15,550,000. In 1928–29—that is, the current Estimates—the sum of £114,600,000 is allocated for the defence forces, the Army taking £41,050,000, the Navy £57,300,000, and the Air Force £16,250,000.
7.0 P.M
That shows that last year and this year the Air Ministry got one-seventh of the total amount. That is far too little. We in this country have only half the number of first-line machines that France has. The whole of these Estimates should be placed under a Minister of Defence so that he can go into them carefully and allocate the money for each Service. He would at once ask the Navy what they were doing with 20 battleships, which now have very little value and which cost about £7,000,000 to keep in commission. That money could be expended in much better ways. Every Member of this House goes on platforms in his constituency and says that he is out for economy. Yet what do we do? We let the Navy run away with £7,000,000 of money on obsolete battleships with only a slight potential value. We will never get these Estimates right until we set up a Minister of Defence to deal with them, to control them, and to look into them. I ask the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs) or any other naval officer in this House, including my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Malone), whom I am very glad to see back in this House, for he was a very gallant officer in the Royal Naval Air Service, how battleships are going to be used 3,000 miles from their base? I have asked this question in the House of Commons and on public platforms, but I have asked in vain for an answer. It is a waste of public money keeping these 20 battleships in commission. That money ought to be used to provide more cruisers and also to help the Air Force. I hope every Member will support the establishment of a Ministry of Defence to go into
the whole question of these Estimates for the greater efficiency and economic administration of the Fighting Services.

Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONE: The question of a Ministry of Defence, to which the last Member has just referred, is of course a very important question, but it would be more appropriately discussed in a special Debate allocated to that subject. I only rise to refer to two technical questions which were underlined by the Secretary of State for Air in presenting the Estimates. In presenting the Estimates, he was rather inclined to prejudge any of his critics who might arise during the course of the Debate as fanatics. I am quite prepared to take that risk. Those of us who 20 years ago were associated with the business of flying in its infancy were all regarded as fanatics when we suggested to the then Board of Admiralty that there was a possibility of flying at all.
I want to refer to the two technical questions which the right hon. Gentleman underlined—the question of airships and the question of civil aviation. I feel my hon. Friend the Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Rose) was a little bit hard on Lord Thomson. After all, it must be remembered that the Burney Scheme came to Lord Thomson as a legacy. A legacy can be either something useful or a burden on the legatee. In this case, it was a burden, and we must say that, when that burden was eventually passed on, it was a far smaller burden than when it originally came to Lord Thomson. At the time when the scheme was being put forward, there were proposals and prophecies as to what it would do. Many years have now elapsed, and I suggest to my right hon. Friend that the time has come to discuss whether the whole of this airship question is really a sound policy or not. The right hon. Gentleman told us, when he was speaking about the airship policy, that the Air Ministry had made concerted attacks on all the problems connected with airships.
I was rather surprised to hear that the first two branches that came to his mind were meteorology and wireless. He did not tell us at all about any progress in regard to the construction of the airships, of the hulls, of the gas bags, or of any new non-inflammable gases, or of
the engines, or of any of the technical parts associated with the airships themselves. He only told us that they had overcome the problems of meteorology and wireless. It is certainly to be doubted whether at this stage the construction of airships is really going ahead and is an advance, as steamships were an advance on sailing ships, or whether going ahead now with airships would not be putting back the clock. I am not at all sure that on purely scientific and engineering grounds it cannot be argued that airships are an invention of a past age. The right hon. Gentleman has undoubtedly listened with great interest to the technical arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen. He presented to us a very clear and wellthought-out case, but his case is not the only case that has been put forward. There has been published a book by a naval constructor, Mr. Spanner, which goes into these grounds very fully. If we do not accept all the arguments he puts forward, at least those arguments merit very careful consideration from those responsible for spending such large sums of public money.
I do not want to argue this question of airships on mere technical grounds, although technical grounds in themselves are sufficiently strong to merit investigation. I would like to discuss it from a rather broader and perhaps similar aspect. First of all, the whole question of airships has been rather lamentable history in the past. I yield to no one in my admiration of the work done by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hertford (Rear-Admiral Sueter) in the construction of the "Mayfly," but the mistake made there was not a mistake by those responsible. The mistake was made by discontinuing that work and allowing all the experienced energies assembled there to be dissipated. If it had been pursued at that time, it is possible that we should to-day have an efficient airship service, as efficient as that of Germany or of any other country, but we have not got that, and we have to consider this whole question from the point of view of the world as it is to-day and not of the world as it might have been if we had done something 18 or 20 years ago.
The first question that occurs to my mind is: Why are the Air Ministry building two airships? With all these
changes in airship policy in the past—we have discontinued the construction of airships three times—you have collected staffs, built up highly-trained bodies of scientists in this very unknown science of airships, and then you have allowed them to go back into civil life. With all these difficulties of getting men who know anything about airships, how can you expect, when you start again, to build two airships in two different places under two different staffs working in two watertight boxes without, if my information is correct, any co-operation between the two? I suggest that if you are going to build two—and there is something to be said for that—you should build two of the same sort, so that, if damage or accident occurs to one, you can go on with the experiments on the other. In dissipating the very limited knowledge and research over two airships, you are reducing your chances of success by 50 per cent.
Something was said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hertford in relation to the use of airships during the War. I am not at all convinced that the great flights made by the Zeppelins over the North Sea were as useful as they have been made out to be or that they could not equally well have been carried out by long-range seaplanes and with much greater regularity. We have to consider what is wanted to-day. The Secretary of State for Air undoubtedly desires to organise airship services between different parts of the Empire. It is no use organising these services unless they can be organised with regularity, and unless you can organise those services with at least as little irregularity as you experience in a steamship service. You must know, for instance, when you are going to set out from the airship station in England to India, that there is some chance of the airship sailing within a few days of the advertised time and getting to India within a few days of the advertised time at the other end. To do this, you will not require one or two airships but a dozen airships, and that will require, in my estimation, tens of millions of pounds.
I had the honour to be associated with this work 15 or 20 years ago, and no one will accuse me of wanting to cripple any scientific research work, but it is largely now a question of money and of getting the work done. I will give the
House an analogy. We will assume that you want to get from London to India and to get there regularly. Take the analogy of trying to get across Whitehall. You know perfectly well that there is a fairly certain chance of being able to walk across Whitehall every day on foot as often as you like. Instead of that somebody says, "We will not do that, we will spend some money in trying to get across Whitehall by a Pogo." That is exactly what the Air Ministry are doing in trying to get to India by airship instead of by heavier-than-air craft.
The Secretary of State for Air knows perfectly well, from his experience whilst flying to India—I congratulate him upon taking such a practical interest in his work—that it is quite possible with sufficient money to run a regular service from this country to India. I suggest that if the right hon. Gentleman requires more money for these air services he should take the £500,000 which is being wasted on airship experiments, and this money would enable him to provide a regular by-weekly service to India and probably to other parts of the globe. I suggest, in view of all the criticisms, technical and operational, that the very least the right hon. Gentleman should do is to appoint a Committee to go into the whole question. Many of these questions are long overdue, and it is due to the taxpayers that they should know how long the Air Ministry is going to be in delivering the goods.
I am ready to argue the question of civil aviation on the right hon. Gentleman's own ground. You can argue the need for further developments from the point of view of the warrior who wishes to produce weapons for bombing this or that Arab tribe, or you can argue it from the point of view of the pacifist. Whichever way you argue the point, you must come to the conclusion that it is necessary to build up the civil side of your air service. If you want to have an efficient air service, you must get the industry going, and you must support it. If you take the pacifist view, then you must support the development of your great international air routes. I believe that the development of air routes stretching across the great countries of the world will bring the nations nearer together, and may prove one of the best pacifying influences in the world. The
development of civil aviation should be encouraged upon all sides of the House. When we come to consider what has been done, we find that this country is far behind every other country that possesses any air service at all. The Secretary of State for Air has shared the credit of his Department together with the other gallant officers under him for what has been accomplished. I am not going to apportion the blame to others who are under the right hon. Gentleman, because he is responsible.
If you take the map of the air routes of the world, you find that those which are marked red are run by this country, and they are no credit at all to the civil administration of our service. If you take the figures, it will be found that Germany—a country we were supposed to have defeated in the Great War to end war—has now 14,800 air miles, the United States has 9,000, France 8,300, little Belgium 3,000, Australia will soon have over 8,000, and we have only 2,226 air miles. If hon. Members want any indication of the lack of interest which the Air Ministry is taking in the civil side of aeronautics, they only need turn to the Report of the Air Minister, and on page 5 they will find that of the experimental ships which are being constructed under the guidance of the Air Ministry only one is intended for civil purposes. Therefore, if we take it mathematically, the Air Ministry apportions its interest between military and civil purposes in the proportion of 14 to 1, and that is too small a percentage so far as civil aviation is concerned.
The money which we are spending on airships would go a long way towards building up great trans-Continental routes. We must not forget that every day we are losing by the work which is being done in this connection by other countries.
The hon. and gallant Member for Chatham (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) referred to the international aspect of this question. The Germans are already running their lines across France into the middle of Spain, and why cannot we run our lines across Europe just as our late enemies and our allies are now doing. Surely, this is only a question of international agreement. You could do this with the money that you are proposing to spend on airships, or you could do
it by devoting the £7,000,000 which you are proposing to spend on an obsolete warship, which one seaplane carrying a torpedo will be able to send to the bottom of the sea. By taking the money you are proposing to spend on one Dreadnought you can put civil aviation on a proper footing once and for all. There is something in the argument that £1 spent on the Air Force is equal to£5 spent on the Army, and £10 on the Navy. An hon. Member has alluded to the possibility of subsidising pilots. That is only one suggestion, and there are many others. You could also develop the civil side of aviation and assist firms by giving them longer programmes.
I have heard complaints from manufacturers and from those who work in aeroplane factories about the practice of the Air Ministry in giving out their orders from year to year, and I suggest that this is not in the best interests of the industry as a whole. Certainly, it is not in the interests of the manufacturers, because at one part of the year they fill up their staff, and at the end of the year they have to sack them. It is not in the interests of the workers. There are hardly any of the skilled trades which require greater proficiency than that of building aeroplanes and seaplanes. Not long ago, I went over one of the biggest aeroplane factories in this country, and the manager showed me a list of his employés from which I discovered that 800 out of 1,000 of those workers were passing part of the year on the dole because the order programme of the Air Minister is only carried on from year to year. I suggest that in future we should try and spread the orders over longer periods, and they should be spread over two or three years.
I have now raised the two questions which the Secretary of State for Air underlined in presenting the Estimates, namely, the question of airships and the question of civil aviation. I suggest that these are two respects in which the Air Ministry have failed in the last three years, and I contend that they will continue to fail, because it seems to outsiders that the Air Ministry is dominated by the military minds, by red tape, and by red tabs. The Air Ministry will continue to fail in those two branches so long as the right hon. Gentleman is dominated by those influences, and so
long as he allows himself to proceed on those lines. What is wanted at the Air Ministry is a replacement of the military mind by the air mind.

Major HILLS: I do not agree with some of the arguments which have been used by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Malone). The hon. Gentleman has made a very interesting speech. He has said a good deal which gained my assent, but I cannot agree with his last two statements. I do not agree that the Air Minister is dominated by the military mind, nor do I think that civil aviation is in a bad way. You can look at civil aviation from two points of view. You can regard it as a thing in itself to be encouraged for commercial or business purposes, or you can regard it as a sort of reserve to assist the military arm. The hon. Member for Northampton seemed to take the latter view, and he regards the civil arm as a reserve in case of war.

Mr. MALONE: I said that it could be argued from both sides, but I stated that I was a supporter of the pacifist side.

Major HILLS: At any rate, I can lay that charge at the door of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Bristol (Captain Guest), who expressly said that the civil arm ought to be regarded as the reserve for the military side. I take the opposite view, and I disagree entirely with the right hon. Gentleman and all the reasons which he gave showing how badly we were doing in civil aviation—all the arguments used by the right hon. Gentleman seem to prove just the opposite. First of all, I want to see this great business of civil aviation developed as an agency spreading all over the world, because I believe it would be a great instrument for peace. We have been told that we have only 20 aeroplanes for civil aviation. If you are going to regard civil aviation as a business, you must get the industry going at small cost. If necessary, the industry must be subsidised with a view to it becoming profitable in the end. Ours is the only country looking at this question as something which will pay its own way in the future. The French pay a subsidy many times larger than ours, and the Germans do the same. Besides this, a large number of big towns in Germany develop the aeroplane industry. Consequently, we start in face
of the fact that much more money is spent in this direction on the Continent of Europe than is spent in this country.
Then you come to a more pregnant fact still. We in this island shall never fly commercially for more than 60 miles over the island. It will never pay us to fly from London to Glasgow, commercially, and so all our commercial flying has to be from London to the Channel, or from London to the North Sea, and then over Europe. We start, therefore, with the disadvantage that we have no home Air Service upon which we can build up our foreign Air Service. The Germans—and I want to pay a tribute to the enterprise shown by Herr Junker and the great firm that he controls—the Germans start with a valuable home service, a means of home communication, and upon that they can build up a service over the rest of Europe. Therefore, when the hon. Member for Northampton quotes the small number of miles of services that we fly, do not let him forget that very essential fact, and do not let him forget, also, that the main outlet for British flying lies first in Imperial communications, and those Imperial communications will probably be carried more in flying boats than in aeroplanes.
I do not wish to enter into the conflict that has raged so fiercely between the airship and the aeroplane, but, although I have flown in every air service in Europe except in Russia, when airships start to carry passengers I shall not go on the first journey. As between the aeroplane and the flying boat, however, there is no conflict, and it is, surely, quite obvious that we, with our island position and our Imperial communications, ought to develop the flying boat as much as we can. On that I want to ask my right hon. Friend a question. Can he tell the House, or can the Under-Secretary tell the House, whether there is any good commercial flying boat? We all know that there are very good flying boats, but a good commercial vehicle must have a high useful load. It must have a lift of, say 3 or 4 lbs. per horsepower, and, until that is possible, we shall not have a boat that is much good for carrying passengers or mails, at any rate without being very expensive.
Next, my right hon. Friend told us that he is starting a commercial service
to India. I am delighted to hear it, and I agree that he could not spend money more usefully than in starting that route. I do not know whether the Under-Secretary can tell us, when he comes to speak, what route will be followed through Europe on the flight to India. In order to get out to the East, we must cross Europe, and there are several ways of crossing Europe. I do not know whether this question can be answered yet, but, if it were possible, I should like to know. The difficulty with Persia is one of those annoying things that will occur sometimes. I suppose my right hon. Friend is quite satisfied that no European Power is trying to block the route? I am not sure that that might not be so, because there is a great deal of competition in the air, and it might be that some of our European rivals are behind the inexplicable refusal of Persia to let us fly over her territory. There is a third question that I should like to ask my right hon. Friend. It is as to how far night flying, for mails and parcels, at any rate, has been developed. British flying is suffering a further handicap in this respect, because, since we cannot fly at night, the aeroplane is of very little use for carrying short distance mails. For instance, the Paris mail might go quite well by air, but it goes now by boat and train because we cannot fly at night. I believe that the whole of the route to Paris is lighted, and some of the routes over Europe are lighted, and, although it is perhaps questionable whether we ought to carry passengers by night—though no doubt that will come very soon—still, we might carry a very large amount of letters, and it would be a very remunerative traffic.
The hon. Member for Northampton said that too much attention was paid to meteorology and wireless telegraphy, and too little to developing the type of aeroplane. I am not sure that I agree with him. He has an authority that I cannot command, but I would put to him this point, that the great progress in civil aviation will not be in the air, but on the ground the great difficulties that we have to overcome in civil aviation are the difficulties of pilots in finding their way in the very foggy and difficult climate in which British pilots are compelled to fly, and, above all, in avoiding snowfalls, which are so very dangerous. All that is, I believe, more important at
the moment than the type of plane and the type of engine used, for it all comes back to this, that in civil aviation, where passengers are carried, nothing matters except safety. You must be safe, and we in Imperial Airways have had an extraordinary record of safety. We have run this service with very small loss of life, and we have run it with great regularity. It is much safer to fly in a British aeroplane than to travel in a French railway train, and I want it to become fixed in the mind of the ordinary man that, when he is going to the Continent of Europe or to India, he should, in discussing alternative routes, consider that the air is not more dangerous than the sea or the land. I believe that we are getting to that point, with the slotted wing, the three-engined machine, and all the numerous inventions that are near completion—we know them, we can almost see them, they are quite near. These inventions, which tend to enable an aeroplane to land for safety when in a difficulty, are by far the most important part of civil aviation.
It is sometimes said that, the more you increase civil aviation, the more you militarise the country, and that, by increasing the civil arm, you are really increasing military power. I submit to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Bristol that the contrary may take place. If you go back 300 years, you will find that the merchantman and the warship were interchangeable types. Now they have differentiated so far, and are differentiating so much further, that the use of the merchantman in war, although it may carry some weight, can never be decisive. Will not the same thing occur in the air, and is it not really in the interest of peace to spend all the money that you can on civil aviation, since, the more it is developed, the more it will differentiate, and the more it will become a great commercial service, linking up the British Empire and also the rest of the world, and becoming a great civilising and peace-bringing force?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: In approaching the Air Estimates, I always feel rather like Sir James Barrie, who said that he had another personality, Maconochie. I feel that I am in two minds. In the first place, I realise that air warfare is becoming so terrible that, unless nations do away with it, they will
be mad, and those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad. That is the Kenworthy side. The Maconochie side says this, that, as long as we have an Air Service, I would rather see it 100 per cent. efficient. I am not satisfied that it is 100 per cent. efficient, and I will give the basic reason why. In the first place—and this is Maconochie speaking—if we have to spend £115,000,000 on defence, there is no doubt at all that at least £60,000,000 ought to be spent on the air arm, the money being taken correspondingly from the Army and the Navy. We ought to take away the Army of Occupation on the Rhine as well, which would be a further saving, and do away with the cavalry, because the aeroplane can do everything that the horse-soldier can do, and much more efficiently.
May I also put this to some hon. Gentlemen here who visualise with equanimity a future air war? I do not believe that warfare is anymore destructive to-day than it was in the old days. Genghis Khan, for instance, was one of the most destructive warriors that ever lived, and he had a democracy on horseback. His Tartar horsemen had tremendous mobility, corresponding with the aeroplane to-day; and, if there should arise a real democracy in the air, as may happen in 20 years' time, if you have not come to some agreement for international peace, you may as well, to use a naval expression, stand from under. Genghis Khan destroyed everything in his path, so that his lines of communication should not be attacked from walled cities. Although, however, modern warfare is no more destructive than that kind of warfare was, there is more to destroy, because, after all, in the days of Genghis Khan people could still till the soil, the survivors could grow crops and carry on; but to-day you destroy something that did not exist in those days, namely, the complicated system of credit by which we live, and deprived of which we should return to the condition of savages. That is what is going to happen if we are so mad as to allow another great air war. I am extremely disappointed with what was said by the Secretary of State with regard to the aeroplane. He seemed to me to praise the airship, but I think his argument has been blown to smithereens by successive speakers since. The hon. and gallant Member for Hertford (Rear-Admiral Sueter)
referred to the Germans' use of Zeppelins at the Battle of Jutland, but, as a matter of fact, when they wanted Zeppelins most, they had not got them, and they made their escape during the night before the Zeppelins came into play.

Rear-Admiral SUETER: Surely, when they wanted Zeppelins most was when they wanted to escape, and their two Zeppelins told them the actual position of the British Fleet, so that they were able to escape.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On the other hand, Von Scheer's squadron was not up in time for battle. They did not know that our battleships were at sea, and they did not know that they were so far from the battle cruisers. That, however, is only a small matter which does not affect the main argument. A good deal has happened since, and the aeroplane has improved immensely. When I hear the right hon. Gentleman say that the aeroplane is unsuitable for long flights, I wonder if he has ever heard of what has been going on in America for three years. Every day and every night an air mail service starts from New York and plies to San Francisco, and simultaneously an air liner starts from San Francisco for New York and they beat the excellent trunk mail trains. The distance from San Francisco to New York is approximately the distance from London to Bagdad. They have been flying for three years with 99 per cent. efficiency. Last year, they did not kill a man and did not lose a letter.
The right hon. Gentleman stands up at that box and charms half the House and drugs the other half with his gentle perambulations and says it is all right from London to Paris and Bagdad to Cairo, but we have to have these costly airships if we are to link up the Empire. He told us that he was hoping to get an air mail service to India. For three years he has been making the same speech, and now once more he hopes to establish an air line to India. When I ask him if he is consulting the Dutch authorities as to extending the link to Australia to join up with their excellent civil aviation service and if unofficial conversations have been going on, the
whole Air Ministry on this question of Empire communication is fast asleep. We shall have a rude awakening. What is being done in flying from Khartum to the Cape of Good Hope? A lady is doing it now in a little Moth aeroplane. For seven years it has been possible to fly a regular mail service from Egypt to the Cape, of course with feelers to the West Coast and so forth. That would do much to help our trade.
Last year, this precious Government voted £1,000,000 for the Empire Marketing Board, and could only spend £500,000 of it, mostly on beautifying our hoardings with pictorial geographical lessons. I think they were fine pictures and useful for geography lessons, but that was all. The Empire Marketing Board was only able to spend £500,000, and £500,000 went back into the maw of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That £500,000 would have established a fortnightly air service to Sydney from London. It is most astonishing that this matter has been neglected. I do not want to enlarge upon it, but I should like to quote Sir Eric Geddes as against the hon. Member for Ripon (Major Hills). They are both directors—I understand the hon. and gallant Gentleman was a director—of Imperial Airways. This is from a Conservative newspaper—therefore it must be true—the "Birmingham Post" of 30th November last. Sir Eric Geddes said that the trouble was that there were not enough subsidies paid, and that the impoverished German, in 1926, paid in subsidies for their civil aviation £760,000, and last year, with subsidies paid by the municipalities, £1,300,000. France is a poor country compared with ourselves, and with not so large an Empire, but her air lines in 1927 received £634,000, while the figure for subsidies in these Estimates is £266,000, flying only 2,000 miles of regular lines as against over 13,000 for Germany and over 9,000 for France. No people in the world would benefit more by linking up the scattered distant parts of our Dominions than we would by this heaven-sent invention of the aeroplane. It would link the Empire together and prevent it falling to pieces, if only it could be developed, and the right hon. Gentleman stands again and again at that Box and says that the year after next we are going to begin developing the line to India, but we are not even
officially consulting with the Government at the Hague for linking up with the East Indies, and possibly on to Australia. Except that the right hon. Gentleman always disarms us with his charming manner and is so ready to give information, I could suggest impeaching him for his neglect of the most vital need of the Empire to-day—Imperial air communication.
There is no thinking staff at the Air Ministry. They are all engaged in administration. [Interruption.] Now I am talking of a matter of which I have some small knowledge, and the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Sir G. Butler) shows by his laughter that he has very little. I know something about the organisation of staff duties, and that is the weakness in the Air Ministry. My suggestion is constructive, and I hope the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Air Minister will pay attention. I have been looking at the organisation of aerodromes, and they are organised for one purpose, and that very inadequately—for the defence of London. I do not see any organisation for the defence of the principle shipping ports, and the greatest disadvantage that we should have to face in a war with a great Continental Power would be attacks on our docks, wharves, harbours, and docks. Anyone who looks at a map showing the aerodromes and the stationing of the squadrons will see that they are concentrated practically only for the defence of London, and, as far as I can make out, there are no real preparations for two dangers of the greatest magnitude. One is attacks on the docks and harbours, and the other is attacks on merchant ships at sea.
In the late War, we were taken absolutely by surprise by the use of the submarine against merchant shipping. No one thought the Germans would break the ordinary rules of international law at sea to that extent, and we were taken unprepared. If there should be another war the surprise would be the use of aeroplanes and seaplanes against merchant shipping. They do not even need torpedoes for this purpose. I do not know if the right hon. Gentleman has been informed of the experiments carried out in America when the "Virginia" and an ex-German cruiser were sunk. The sinking was done by bombs dropped a few feet away in the water. Water
being incompressible, the explosion drove it like a great hammer through the hull of the ship. They sank the "Ostfriesland," an up-to-date super-Dreadnought, by a 2,000 lb. bomb dropped in the water alongside her. The experiments were very remarkable, and both the Admiralty and the Air Ministry ought to observe them. It will be easy to sink merchant ships in the same way by small bombs dropped alongside, or to gas their crews, or other devilish devices which I need not describe.
I do not see any real preparation by the Air Ministry to meet this menace. It is not the business of the Navy, and you cannot look to the Navy, because the Navy aeroplanes will be required for tactical purposes with the Fleet. It has to be done by aeroplanes flying from land, which is a much cheaper way of flying aeroplanes than from aeroplane carriers, and all along the Mediterranean sea routes, wherever there is a large force, in Spain, Italy or France—they will understand, if they hear I have made such a remark, that I am not suggesting a war with them—we shall be open to attack from every aerodrome along the shore. I do not believe the Air Ministry are considering the matter at all, and I know they are not considering the broad needs of the Empire, because they have only just begun to arrange for aeroplanes to be at Singapore. Our position at Iraq is extremely vulnerable. We have only 75 first-line machines. We are at present threatened from the Desert, from the South-west, and we have had to concentrate our forces to defend Koweit. On the North you have a formidable military power, Turkey, and on the East, Persia, a power which could be formidable under a military leader, and you have this wedge of territory into the heart of the Mohammedan world with three intensely hostile peoples round it. You have 70 or 75 first-line machines to defend this huge territory.
I therefore think the staff side of the Air Ministry is weak, and by staff I mean a thinking staff. As far as I can make out, there is nothing in the Air Ministry corresponding to the Plans Division in the Admiralty. It took two years of war, and a position of extreme danger—we were within an ace of losing the War by submarine attack—before a Department was formed at the Admiralty to consider
plans ahead, a Department that was divorced from the administrative side, and that is the key of real staff organisation. One of the few mistakes the late Earl of Oxford made in his career was to send Lord Haldane to the War Office instead of to the Admiralty. He is one of the few men who at that time understood what staff organisation meant. If he had gone to the Admiralty and organised the Admiralty staff as he organised the War Office staff, the War would have been over in less than a year without that immense expenditure of life on the Continent. However, after two years of War, we got a thinking division in the Admiralty without administrative preoccupations. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer, who organised the staff at the Admiralty, was a failure, because he did not understand it any more than does the hon. Member for Cambridge University apparently understands it.
I should advise the Air Ministry to study the organisation of the masters of this side of warfare on the German General Staff under the original Count Moltke. He organised a chief of the General Staff, who had only to do with the higher control of policy and the preparation of plans in conjunction with that policy, and the whole of the administration of the Quartermaster-General, the Major-General of the Ordnance, Adjutants-General—all that side of it—was put into a separate department, and the two buildings were separated from each other in Berlin. We have Adastral House and Gwydyr House, and they are separated by a mile. I wish they were separated by 10 miles. In Gwydyr House there should be only the Chief of the Staff and the thinking department, and perhaps the Intelligence Department as well, but in Adastral House should be all the departments dealing with all the day-to-day routine work which in peace time always swamps the Air Council or the Board of Admiralty or the Army Council, as it must do unless you have this arrangement.
What do we see when we turn to the Air Force List? I see the Department of the Chief of the Air Staff, who is Sir Hugh Trenchard, to whom the right hon. Gentleman paid, of course, a very deserved compliment. He has under him a directorate which is called the Directorate
of Operations and Intelligence. That alone damns the whole scheme. You should not have your intelligence and operations in the same department, run by the same people. The two are absolutely distinct. That alone damns it. Secondly, he has his Directorate of Organisations and Staff Duties, and I make no complaint there. Thirdly—and this another damning piece of evidence—he has under him a Directorate of Works and Buildings under the Chief of the Staff! The Chief of the Staff and those under him should be dealing only with questions of stategy, and the organisation of our forces for every conceivable avolation in the world, and how best to defend our interests. They should be entirely divorced from all administrative work, such as the provision of works and buildings. Heavens, Almighty! Are they keeping themselves busy with designs for the building of a new super Dartmouth on land at Cranwell. Are they dealing with barracks and married quarters for the airmen?
Where is your thinking department which has the duty of looking 12 months or 18 months ahead and making plans? We have such a department in the Admiralty. As to the War Office, I have not sufficient knowledge. Have you any such department at the Air Ministry? If you have, I should be very glad to hear of it. I am not accusing the right hon. Gentleman, but I am asking him a question of some importance. If he has not such a department at the Air Ministry, he has no excuse. The Air Force is not a new service, it has no bad traditions, and it has had time to learn. It grew up in the War, and should have learned from the War. I strongly suspect that the real trouble is that the men who count in the Air Ministry are immersed in day-to-day administrative detail, and have not time to think except the right hon. Gentleman who is, after all, political chief, and it is not his business. If that has been allowed to be the case, it must be altered, and altered very quickly. If the right hon. Gentleman can reassure me on this matter, when he comes to reply, I shall be very glad indeed. I end as I began. I am trying to make an efficient administration, which, I hope, by the wise sanity of the younger generation and by mutual agreement with all countries, eventually will be swept out of existence as a fighting machine.

Commander BELLAIRS: I agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) as to the extreme importance of staff thinking in war. But the difficulty in regard to the Air Force was very much the difficulty in regard to the Navy before the War. They had to get away from the material and think in terms of war. The instance which the hon. and gallant Gentleman gave is a case in point. The Navy would have been bound to consider the question of merchant ships being bombed and torpedoed. It is the declared policy of France to torpedo and bomb merchant ships in precisely the same way as Germany submarined them in the late War. There is no getting away from it. They refused to ratify the Root resolutions of the Washington Convention. These problems of a Defence Minister and the reconciling of the fighting forces are too great to be solved in this House. The Committee of Imperial Defence have absolutely failed. They devised a scheme by which the three chiefs of the staff met, but they only meet to discuss questions on which they do not vitally disagree. Questions of vital disagreement they never discuss at all. The only way I can suggest to remedy our difficulties, in view of the attitude of the Government, is that the Government should set up a Royal Commission to inquire into the whole question of defence. We have never had such a Royal Commission, but we have had a Commission on Food Supply and, I think, the Carnarvon Commission sat as long ago as 1881 on the defence of the Coaling Stations. We also had the question of administration inquired into by the Hartington Commission a good many years ago, about 1886.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hertford (Rear-Admiral Sueter) invited me to discuss the question of a naval battle 3,000 miles away from the base. I know I shall not have your protection, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if I travel 3,000 miles away from the Air Ministry. He had a difference of opinion with the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Hull over the question of airships. He is an expert and I am a student, and so I am glad to be on his side in that matter. Airships have shown that they have a naval use. I think the
Air Ministry is right in building one, and the hon. Member on the Socialist Benches who attacked the Air Ministry for building two, and at the same time tried to justify Lord Thomson, must remember that the Conservative plan was to build one airship. It was Lord Thomson who superseded that plan by deciding to build two airships. I think that it is a great mistake to build two airships at the same time.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The Conservative scheme which the Labour party superseded—I was not in the party then—was to build eight.

Commander BELLAIRS: One ship was to be built and that was to be tried, and, if a success, we were to go on with fresh ones but, if a failure, we were to stop. Of course, if it is a success, we shall build a great many more airships. There is no doubt about that. They will be commercial airships built by private enterprise. But the real difficulty, as I see it, is the question of lightning. I have not yet been reassured that we have provided absolute safeguards against lightning. There is no doubt that the Americans are going ahead, and I think the Americans adopted a better plan than we did. The Air Ministry is designing its own ships without consulting the Admiralty who were the original designers of airships. The American Government offered a prize of £10,000 to the whole world to compete with designs of airships, and it is the winning design that is now going to be built in America by some company over there.
The hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Rose) in his violent condemnation and scientific experiences of the mystery of these airships, reminded me somewhat of the way in which steamships were treated in the old days. The President of the British Association in their annual meeting at Bristol about 100 years ago devoted the whole of his subject to the question of the "Great Western" crossing the Atlantic, and he proved to demonstration, mathematically, that it was scientifically impossible for the "Great Western" to cross the Atlantic. The next year the "Great Western" actually crossed the Atlantic. I think that very much the same thing will occur with regard to airships. The Secretary of State himself used the example of people
being opposed to railways and steamships, but I think he forgot that the Air Ministry itself scrapped the airship resources, got rid of all the paraphernalia connected with airships and was opposed to airships until 1923. When the right hon. Gentleman was Secretary of State for Air in 1923 the Government were listening to the urgent representation of the Admiralty, that they were willing to take on the building of airships themselves, and then the Air Ministry started on a policy of airships again. So it is a case of repentance on the part of the Air Ministry.
A great deal has been said about civil flying. I think it is an extraordinary state of affairs, after 10 years of the Air Ministry, that we have only 15 commercial flying planes, or 20, if we add the five in the Middle East. It shows an almost inconceivable failure. Various hon. Members have drawn attention to the fact that Germany has about seven times as much air route, America about 10 times as much, and France about four times as much, and even little Belgium is ahead of this country. We have not a single air route in the whole of the continent of Africa. This is a matter which really demands some explanation from the Ministry, especially after the extravagant ideas which were encouraged immediately after the War, that we were going to have commercial aeroplanes all over the place competing with the ships plying on the seas. As a matter of fact, the whole of the merchandise now carried in commercial aeroplanes during one year is as much as you can put into a Suez Canal ditcher, which would carry it with the greatest ease. The Secretary of State for Air cannot absolve himself from having encouraged some of these extravagant expectations. In regard to his own trip to India, he said in this House last year, on the 10th March last:
I wanted to show, to the world, and particularly to the British world £ that the modern civil machine of to-day can carry out a long-distance flight of this kind with every reliability."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th March, 1927; col. 1401. Vol. 203.]
Surely that trip never showed that. We had destroyers strung out along the route in case the aeroplane tumbled into the sea. We could not do that with all aircraft on a daily voyage. Take the
short distance trips which the Imperial Airways carry out to the continent of Europe. Of these, in 1927, 15 per cent. were interrupted passages. That is not thoroughly reliable. The results are, of course, very good, but it is not what we in connection with merchant shipping would describe as something that has "every reliability," to quote the Secretary of State for Air. That is only in regard to short distance trips
You call them commercial aeroplanes, and yet you give a subsidy of £10 for every passenger carried. A passenger going to Paris pays the Southern Railway a sum of less than £3. To the £10 subsidy you have to add the amount that the passenger pays. I rejoiced to hear the Secretary of State for Air say that we are getting things nearer to a commercial basis with the new planes; that the petrol consumed is going to be less. But are you going to get rid of the subsidy? About half of the mileage to which the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull referred in connection with America, is done without subsidy. It is a paying proposition, without any subsidy. Why should not we get our commercial aeroplanes on the same basis, instead of allowing them to become parasitic on the State?
The Secretary of State for Air referred to the great difficulty in connection with the Indian route, owing to the attitude of Persia. So long as you have commercial machines controlled by a military Department, you must expect suspicion on the part of foreign Governments. You must take you civil flying away from the military Department altogether. If you consider the views put forward by the League of Nations Committee on civil aviation, you can see the suspicion that animated all those representatives. You can note the fears which they entertained in regard to civil aviation being applied to military purposes. Moreover, when you examine the stringent provisions in regard to German civil aviation in the Agreement of the 7th May, 1926, you find how strong were those suspicions in regard to civil aviation. First of all you have it laid down that the military authorities of Germany must in no way be connected with civil aviation. Secondly, only 36 members of the Army and Navy are allowed pilotage certificates
for sporting purposes, and, thirdly, military instruction of any kind whatsoever is forbidden.
In view of these circumstances, consider the remarks made by the right hon. and gallant Member for Bristol North (Captain Guest), a former Secretary of State for Air. He discussed the question of these commercial aeroplanes almost entirely from the point of view of their ability to drop bombs when the next war breaks out. How do you expect when such remarks are made that other nations will not be animated with suspicion in regard to our commercial aeroplanes, so long as those commercial 'planes are under a military Department? The remarks of the Secretary of State in regard to bringing the Air Force into the intellectual and industrial life of the country were significant. The President of the Board of Trade might make those remarks, but they are bound to be regarded with suspicion when they are made by the head of a military Department. I should like to quote a very important pronouncement which was made by the Morrow Committee in America, which was appointed by the President and took a tremendous lot of evidence. They examined 99 witnesses and also examined the evidence of witnesses before many other committees. That Committee in dealing with the question of civil aviation unanimously reported in these terms:
The peace time activities of the United States have never been governed by military considerations. To organise its peace time activities on what it is thought may ultimately be one large branch of them, under military control or on a military basis, would be to make the same mistake which, properly or improperly, the world believes Prussia to have made in the last generation. The union of civil and military air activities would breed distrust in every region to which our commercial aviation sought expansion.
I think that puts the case in a nutshell, and I ask the Government to face the issue. If, for instance, when the steam engine was invented—it was a greater revolution than the invention of the aeroplane—we had said: "We must advance under one Ministry, because steam engines must be applied to warships as well as merchant ships therefore we will put the whole show under the Admiralty, "does anybody think that the merchant marine would be in the position that it is to-day? Had that been done, the Military
Department would have starved the whole show. Therefore, I do implore the the Government to get these two things, civil aviation and military aviation, separated as soon as possible.
The right hon. and gallant Member for Bristol, North, dealt with a very wide subject when he referred to the Air Force attacking the nerve centres of nations and said that that would be their principal business. He quoted Marshal Foch as having said so in a lecture. I think the quotation—I know it well—was one given just after the War in conversation with and on the authority of General Groves, who is at the head of the Air League in this country. The only way that we can judge on this matter is by the exact war plans of the French Army, and what they intend to do. Their plans were revealed in 1923 by the American military attaché in France, in a publication in America. They propose to mobilise their Army in 72 hours and their Air Force in 36 hours. In the remaining 36 hours before the Army is fully mobilised, they propose to use their Air Force entirely against the military communications of the enemy army. After that they rejoin their military units. There is nothing whatever said about attacking defenceless towns, and the reason is obvious. The wastage in the Air Force is tremendous. Sir Hugh Trenchard has stated that the wastage will be 80 per cent. in the first month of the war. Therefore, if you use your aeroplanes against defenceless towns the wastage will be so great that it might easily happen that the nation which wastes its force like that, may find itself defenceless in regard to that force within a month. That is the reason why the French do not intend to do that.
The Secretary of State for Air said that the Air Force was formed on the unanimous demand of public opinion during the War to prevent duplication and to establish unity of command and unity of effort. I can only say in regard to that, that it was established to prevent duplication because the Army and the Navy were competing for an inadequate supply of aeroplanes. There is not a single naval officer nor, I believe, a single soldier who would oppose a Department which exists for the purpose of supply, just like the Ordnance Department. We have the authority of the first Secretary of State for Air that was ever appointed
in this country, Lord Rothermere, that there was no other reason for the formation of the Air Ministry but to prevent duplication, and that the intention was to revert to the old plan of an Air arm for the Army and an Air arm for the Navy, and that for the purpose of civil aviation there was to be a different Department. Lord Rothermere stated that it was purely a temporary expedient. There is no nation which has copied us in this respect.

Rear-Admiral SUETER: Italy!

Commander BELLAIRS: Italy attempted to copy us, but the first naval manœuvres which followed resulted in a farce, and Signor Mussolini was so struck with the failure of having a separate Air Force that he re-introduced the system of the Navy training its own pilots and having its own Air Force. The Secretary of State for Air says that the present system has been justified by a number of inquiries. There has been no public inquiry of any description. The public have never been reassured. There have been no public inquiries like there have been in America. There have been Departmental inquiries on limited matters and Terms of Reference, of which the public and this House knew nothing except the conclusions reached. After 10 years, there ought to be a general stocktaking, if not of the Air Service alone, then of the whole three services, so that we may know how we stand in regard to offence and defence and that we may secure real economy in finance.

AERIAL DISARMAMENT.

Mr. BARNES: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words:
in view of the peril to civilisation latent in air warfare, this House regrets that His Majesty's Government did not advocate bolder proposals for aerial disarmament at the meeting of the Preparatory Commission for the Disarmament Conference at Geneva, and urges them to take the initiative in putting forward a programme containing the abolition of military and naval air forces and the establishment of the international control of civil aviation.
For over four hours we have been discussing these Estimates. When the Air Minister was speaking, although he occupied
nearly an hour, he paid very little attention to the Air Force as a fighting instrument. The speeches to which we have listened, mainly from the benches opposite, which are now empty, treated the problem of the Air Force in rather a gingerly fashion. The bulk of the speeches have been directed to the development of airships and civil aviation. One would have pardoned those speeches had this been essentially a peace subject that we are considering. As a matter of fact, and that is the reason why we introduced this Amendment, the Air Force, like the Navy and the Army, is organised for the purpose of prosecuting war, and it is from that standpoint that we approach the question. We desire to turn the discussion to this aspect of this subject, because we consider it is of the utmost importance and should be our primary consideration. We on these benches take up no equivocal position at all. We say without hesitation and without qualification that the whole energy of this Government should be used not for perfecting the Air Force of this country but how to abolish the Air Force in consultation and in agreement with other countries. I put forward this Amendment on three main grounds. The first ground is that of self-preservation. The second, the disastrous economic consequences of mechanised warfare, and particularly aerial warfare, and the third that warfare to-day, and particularly air warfare, affronts all the higher moral sense of the community. The hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Dalton) in replying to the speech of the Secretary of State touched the crux of the problem when he indicated that we had now arrived at a position when aerial warfare represents a development of military science specifically for the offensive, and although we are perfecting this instrument at a rapid rate no corresponding defence is being developed. This raises an entirely new issue for humanity. If I could not advance this proposal on the grounds of self-preservation I should be rather uneasy in my mind, because I realise that the prosecution of war is one of the oldest of human institutions. It dates back right into history, and is embedded in the structure of society. It goes deep down into the heart and being of every individual. Possibly the beginning of warfare was the necessity for self-defence
and self-preservation; but in aerial warfare we cannot claim that any longer. The position is reversed. All the instincts of self-preservation call for the abolition of this instrument. It is impossible to discuss this subject with any
rhetorical exaggeration. There are many subjects in which sentiment and emotion may cause us to exaggerate, for or against, but no matter in which direction we look, whether we take the views of statesmen or of experts, of military men or of naval men, or the view of the man in the street, the immense disastrous consequences of aerial warfare are known and it is impossible to exaggerate. It is generally recognised that the language of this country is not sufficient to portray what will happen if we enter into another war. Let me quote one or two statements made by the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Air himself, and also the hon. and gallant Member for Hallam (Sir F. Sykes) who, of course, speaks from first hand knowledge of this subject. The Prime Minister, speaking in 1927, said:
Who in England does not know that with one more war in the west the civilisation of the ages will fall with as great a shock as that of Rome.
There is no qualification about that utterance. It is a simple specific statement of fact. When we get the Prime Minister of this country, the head of the Government, the man who is responsible for our world policy of peace, we are entitled to ask that the Government should give us some clear statement, some proof, that they are endeavouring to avert the catastrophe which the Prime Minister so clearly indicated. The Secretary of State for Air in 1925, on a similar occasion as the present, said:
With Air Force development as it is, with development in bombs, with developments in range, with developments in chemicals, with developments in liquid gas—if we go on as we are now air warfare in the future may well mean the destruction of civilisation as we know it to-day." [OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th February, 1925, Col. 2210, Vol. 180.]
Since he made that statement the Secretary of State has submitted two further Estimates, but on neither occasion has he indicated that the policy of the Government tends to avert the disaster which he also clearly indicates. Let me turn to the statement made by the hon. and
gallant Member for Hallam in the Air Estimates Debate in February, 1926. He said:
A future war is in my opinion inevitable if armaments continue to be piled up, nation against nation, and, though that war may have small initial beginnings, it is almost bound to spread to world dimensions. ….It will cause unparalleled horror and misery, and probably cause the destruction of the civilised world."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th February, 1926, Col. 795, Vol. 192.]
Those are three quotations from hon. Members opposite, couched in the same terms, and again I ask the Under-Secretary of State when he replies to tell us specifically if the Government have taken any definite action in the intervening years to avert the disaster which they foretell. In our Amendment we regret that:
His Majesty's Government did not advocate bolder proposals for aerial disarmament at the meeting of the Preparatory Commission at Geneva.
The Secretary of State, replying to a similar Motion last year, made this statement on behalf of the Government:
The Preparatory Commission for Disarmament is meeting in Geneva in a very few days and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is going, I understand, to put very definite proposals of the British Government for disarmament.
What were these proposals which the Under-Secretary of State described as "definite proposals for disarmament"? I submit that they are not proposals for disarmament at all. They would not materially assist disarmament. They are merely tentative suggestions which might have led to a limitation of expenditure for a year or two, but would have left the whole organisation of war capable of being expanded whenever the necessity arose. We do not approach the problem of disarmament from the standpoint of a partial limitation of expenditure this year or next. We shall, of course, support on every occasion any proposal for limitation of expenditure, because it directs the attention of the world to the useless waste of wealth and it opens up the way for the larger and more complete consideration of the problem. But the Government, in the White Paper issued by the League of Nations, says:
The limitation of air armaments shall be effected by limiting the number of shortbase aircraft service types maintained in commission in first line combatant units,
within the limit of each State which is a party to the present Treaty.
The number of such aircraft maintained by each of the high contracting parties shall not exceed the figures set out in Table 3.
That apparently completes the definite proposals which the Under-Secretary of State said last year would be submitted by the British Government and would lead to disarmament. In submitting this Amendment we wish to state that we think the Government proposals are inadequate and will not accomplish the purpose and do not carry out the pledge that was given last year. I do not wish to advance this subject in a party sense at all, nor do I want my criticism to be taken to represent expert criticism. I do not claim to be an expert on this matter, but I do claim that this subject is not a subject for experts. It is a subject that essentially affects the man and woman in the street; it affects the lives of the people of this country, and Members of Parliament, who are sent here primarily to represent the man in the street, are entitled to demand that their voices shall be supreme over the experts. But if my view and the views of Members of Parliament do not carry any weight with the Government, let me quote one of their own supporters, and a very powerful and influential supporter. I am referring to Viscount Cecil and to a statement made by him in the House of Lords on 17th November. Evidently Viscount Cecil shares the same views as myself and others who support this Amendment. He evidently considers that the Government proposals at Geneva were quite inadequate for the purpose they were intended to serve. In his speech in the House of Lords he said:
He went to Geneva conscious that on many points his instructions were likely to cause serious difficulties. Exactly what he anticipated occurred, and he was repeatedly put into a position of having to defend in the League Committee propositions which seemed to him indefensible. It was quite true that in response to urgent telegrams from him he was allowed to make some concessions, but by that time much of the harm had been done. The impression had been produced that the British Government were lukewarm in their desire that the Commission should lead to a successful result.
We believe the same. We believe that the Government are not sincere in their proposals for disarmament. I should be
sorry, on an occasion like this, to judge the sincerity of any person or group of persons or party, but I do think that in human affairs we must judge the sincerity of people by their deeds, and I do not think that anyone who looks back on the post-War period and considers the approach to universal peace, can be proud of the record of the present Government during its three years of office. Because we believe that we are submitting our Amendment. We state in the Amendment that we believe that the Government should come forward, not with a partial limitation of air forces, but that they should advocate and be prepared to work out the necessary practical scheme. I do not minimise the fact that disarmament throughout the world, with nations in different stages of development, with the economic conflict between different countries, with racial history and tradition and custom and character all different—I do not in any way minimise the importance of the problem. To-night we have paid a good deal of attention to the question of solving the practical, mechanical and scientific problem of the air. We have had learned dissertations on the development of air science in its many directions.
We appeal to the Government to apply some of its energy, in fact the greatest amount of energy of which this country is capable, to the solution of peace instead of the prosecution of war. To that purpose we have embodied in our Amendment not only a request that the Government should propose the abolition of the military side of the Air Force, but we also ask definitely that civil administration should be surrendered in a national sense and should be made an international service. The reason for this is that we feel that the civil development of aviation is of such a character that it is bound to be an auxiliary service for war if it is left under the control of the respective Governments. It does not matter how much we limit war or how much we prepare agreements, provided the war mind knows that there is a civil service capable of expansion and of being directed to military purposes. While that is so the world will never be safe from war. We therefore advance the suggestion that the Government should go to Geneva with definite and practical proposals, establishing civil aviation as an international service.
We think that this is a practical proposal because we have heard again to-night that in the establishment of long air routes the aeroplane abolishes boundaries and frontiers. Even in the development of our own air service to the Dominions we shall have to come to arrangements with other foreign Powers so that our aeroplanes can travel over their territories, and, if necessary, land to put down or pick up passengers. In the same way as the development of transport, the increased mobility of transport in the nineteenth century, abolished county boundaries in our nations, so must the development of civil aviation abolish national frontiers. If we are really earnest in clothing the League of Nations with some real power and authority in the world, I can conceive of no better way in which we can incorporate that power than by beginning to make them responsible for the increasing importance of civil aviation throughout the world. If the League can control that, there will be a very powerful instrument for bringing the different nations that are parties to the agreement into an amity that at present is not possible. I think that the quotations I have read have proved conclusively that if Europe does not end aerial warfare, then aerial warfare will end Europe.
I turn now to the economic consequences of war, and again I wish to particularise with regard to the economic consequences of aerial warfare. None of us who can look back to the period from 1914 to 1918 and to what has happened since can fail to recognise that this age of mechanised warfare has presented a new group of problems to humanity. We saw in 1914 that the very conditions of modern warfare compelled the complete change over of our industrial system; we had to scrap practically the whole of the industrial peace organisation, and the efforts of the whole nation, as of every nation engaged in the War, had to be diverted for the time being from peace industrial organisation to the prosecution of war in the mechanical sense. We also experienced, in the post-War period, the disastrous consequences of such a situation. The economic consequences were not so apparent when we changed over to a war basis. Then we were spending the wealth reserve of the nation. We
were pouring out the stored-up wealth of the nation. But when that period passed and we had to change back to peace conditions, we found that a new situation had developed. I wonder if it is fully recognised to-day that revolution is the natural aftermath of modern war. We find that the majority of nations engaged in the Great War have passed through a revolutionary period. We had revolutions in Russia, in Germany, in Austria, in Italy, in Bulgaria and even in this country from time to time we have come near to the throes of revolution. Only the democratic instincts of our nation have prevented such a situation developing in our own country. Hon. Members opposite win elections by accusing us of revolutionary purposes; but I believe this country has a great deal for which to thank the leaders of the trade union movement, the Labour party and the cooperative movement.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): The argument which the hon. Member is now using does not seem to apply specially to aerial war more than to any other form of war.

Mr. BARNES: I submit that what I am saying is intimately connected with my argument that modern war causes reactions in industry which produce certain social consequences. I do not feel that anyone can survey the post-War period and consider the social revolutions which have occurred in other countries, without recognising that these have resulted directly from the War. We are discussing a very wide subject, and I think I can show the connection of this argument with the subject of aerial warfare. I desire to make the point that the situation which I have indicated would be intensified in the event of a future war, because aerial warfare will be more disintegrating in its effects than warfare such as we have experienced in the past. Even in this country we see the disastrous economic consequences of the last War in the unemployment figure which we have had to confront in the last five or six years.
Let us consider another aspect of warfare to-day, namely, the arrest of social progress in the countries which engage in war. A survey of political circumstances in Europe during the 10 years following the War shows an almost
universal stoppage of social progress and that in a period when there should have been the greatest social expansion. There has been no period in history when the masses of the people could have legitimately hoped for greater progress and greater expansion in regard to their standard of life; yet we find, as the direct result of the War, an arrest of social development. I mention these matters by way of preliminary, because I desire to quote two or three authorities on aerial warfare. I wish to place their opinions in relation to my previous argument, with the object of showing that should another war occur it will involve the disintegration of society—that aerial warfare will inevitably lead to widespread revolution such as we have not hitherto experienced, and that, indeed, should such a war occur, civilisation may come down in chaos before any military conclusion has been reached. Colonel Fuller, a staff officer who was attached to the Tanks Corps during the War, has expressed the following view:
In the next war fleets of fast-moving tanks, equipped with liquid gas, against which the enemy will have no possible protection, will cross frontiers and obliterate every living thing in fields, farms, villages and cities of enemy countries. Meanwhile fleets of aeroplanes will attack great industrial and governing centres.''
Brigadier-General Groves, now head of the Air League of this country, says:
The science of aviation, which has already forged a paramount weapon, is still in its infancy. Its ally, chemical science, stands merely on the threshold of its possible application to explosives and poisons. The whole apparatus of aerial warfare is changing constantly in swift and stupendous progress towards perfection.
And in the new service regulations we find the following:
The aim of a nation which has taken up arms is therefore to bring such pressure to bear upon the enemy people"—
not the enemy Air Force or the enemy Military force or the enemy Navy Force but the enemy people—
as to induce them to force their Government to sue for peace.
I think those quotations give point to my previous arguments. There we see visualised, a war in the air which will definitely disintegrate society. If that possibility is universally acknowledged by Ministers, by experts and by the man
in the street, again I ask what are the Government doing to avoid such a situation? Another point is that aerial warfare affronts the higher moral sense of the community. In recent years we have seen a new spirit developing in society. Society is becoming too complex for resort to aerial warfare, or any other form of warfare, as a means of settling international differences. We must apply our minds to the development of international law, recognising that aerial warfare is essentially an attack on the civil population, that it strikes pitilessly at the women and children, that it is wholesale murder of a horrible and brutal kind, that it is cowardly—because you cannot argue that there is any form of chivalry in aerial warfare—and that it is Satanic in its purpose and operation. Is the Minister going to continue, from day to day, advocating the training of the flower of our nation for such purposes? Is he going to advocate that we should arm them with all the opportunities of mechanical science, in order that they may destroy indiscriminately women and children, striking at homes and hospitals with the same indifference as at docks and arsenals? While the Government are giving a great deal of attention to the military arm what do they propose doing in the pursuit of peace?
I repeat that we put forward this Motion, not as a party Motion, but because we feel that the Government have failed in their duty and that we, the Opposition, voice views which we believe to be widespread in the community. It is not a party problem but the common problem of humanity. I find in my own constituency that the desire for peace is not confined to those who have a Socialistic outlook on economics. I find local leaders of Conservative and Liberal thought just as pronounced in their views on this subject. This is essentially a subject which cannot be dealt with merely by statements made in literature or in debate. This is a subject which requires sincerity expressed in deeds, and we believe we are speaking, not only for those who support us, but for the larger volume of political opinion outside, when we say that we look to the Government to apply themselves to this task. If we could only show the same energy as a nation in striving to create world peace
as we showed in prosecuting the world War, we should get on much more quickly.
No one can argue that the British people approach this problem in an attitude of fear. Fear has never characterised the history of this country. We are too powerful as a nation, and our responsibilities are too widespread, for any taint of that description to be behind any effort that we may put forward. Therefore, we ask the Government to take the initiative in this matter and to prepare a well-thought-out scheme of complete aerial disarmament. We also ask them to take the larger, broader view of civil aviation, to go to Geneva before it is too late, and again to submit practical proposals for the internationalisation of that service. In conclusion, I will quote a statement made by the Minister of Air at the Imperial Conference in 1926. Speaking to the representatives of the Dominions, he said:
With the horrors of the last War in our memories and the limitless terrors of any future war in our minds, let us make the air the highway of peace and the aeroplane the instrument, not for severing nations and destroying civilised life, but for making closer and more constant the unity of imperial thought, Imperial intercourse, and Imperial ideals.
We, on these benches, support those sentiments, and we ask the Government to go further, and not only to let the aeroplane and the airship be instruments for peace and the bringing together of the nations composing the British Commonwealth of Nations, but we want that Commonwealth of Nations, representing the British thought, to give as its contribution to world development its initiative, enterprise and energy in developing the structure of international law and agreement.

9.00 p.m.

Mr. WELLOCK: I beg to second the Amendment.
I do so with great pleasure, because the Amendment indicates that there is a very determined and growing feeling in this country that something of a very drastic nature must be done in order to bring war to an end. While the Minister for Air was giving his speech at the opening of this Debate, one was tempted to be stimulated, inspired, and even enchanted by his descriptions of the various exploits of the Air Service, and one
almost forgot that we were dealing with an arm of our defence. That matter was scarcely mentioned during the whole of his speech, yet the fact is that in the spending of the £16,000,000 that we shall be asked to vote to-night, there is more destructive power than in the spending of the other £100,000,000, in round figures, that we are voting this year for the Army and the Navy. The condition is such, not only that this country but the entire world is being forced to face considerations and ideas in regard to disarmament that are new and revolutionary. The people of every country are recognising that the issue of peace and war is the paramount issue of the age. We all have ideas as to the sort of land into which we should like to convert our country. We stand for ideas of social change and industrial reorganisation, but we realise that unless this question of peace and war is settled, nothing that we do or desire will be of any use at all. That is why a number of us on these benches, at any rate, feel that we must devote a considerable portion of our time to this question of the disarmament of the whole world, and the position is such that all our ideas must come into the melting pot. No ideas, however extreme, must be cast out simply because they are extreme.
The hon. Member for East Ham South (Mr. Barnes), who moved the Amendment, has made reference to certain statements of the Prime Minister and other important politicians. Similar remarks with respect to the effect of the next war, if next war there be, in destroying our civilisation have been made by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), by Lord Grey, and even by the "Daily Mail." The "Daily Mail," in a leading article on the eve of Armistice Day last year, said:
Another great war would spell the suicide of the Western people, the ruin of Europe, and perhaps even the destruction of civilisation.
If we are sincere in making statements of this kind, surely there can be only one logical deduction to be made from them, and that is that we must make straight the road to a drastic disarmament. What is the evidence that these eminent politicians can produce to show that they are really sincere? The question of the Air Force looms large on
the horizon in regard to militarism. There is only one issue, in my opinion, and that is that, if we are to give up aerial warfare, there is no escape from the conclusion that we must have total disarmament. So long as you have war at all, you must, and you will, according to the ordinary process of development, use that arm of defence which is the most effective, and we all admit that aerial warfare is our most powerful arm and will be used if another war comes about. We all know, too, the sort of psychology that is developed when a war is in progress. It is very soon said that the enemy is too evil to be allowed to live, that the enemy nation is an outlaw nation, that necessity knows no law, that war is killing, and that killing must be done, no matter what means are used. It is impossible that we can determine the sort of war we are going to have, and by reason of the fact that we have the Air Force in our midst to-day, developing such powerful means of taking life, the next war, if next war there be, will be as different from the Great War as the Great War was from the Battle of Waterloo.
Certain statements have been made with respect to air warfare as it will be if we have another war. I will give one or two quotations. One is from a speech made by the Air Chief Marshal, Sir Hugh Trenchard, in 1925. He said:
I feel that all the good it (aviation) will do in civil life cannot balance the harm that will be done in war by it, and if I had the casting vote, I would say abolish the Air Force.
The right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Air has said:
In the whole of the late War some 300 tons of bombs only were dropped by enemy aircraft upon this country. Air Forces to-day could drop almost the same weight in the first 24 hours of war, and continue this scale of attack indefinitely.
Group Captain H. F. M. Foster, the British Air Representative at the Disarmament Conference of the League of Nations, said:
I do not think any airman nowadays in high position would guarantee that under favourable weather conditions to the enemy, immunity could be insured against a great city being flooded with gas, set alight with incendiary shells, and bombed with high explosives.
It is not my intention to give any bloodcurdling description of what air warfare
will be, but we have to remember that there would be four kinds of bombs which could bring destruction beyond imagination. There are the smoke bomb, the incendiary bomb, the high explosive and the poison-gas bomb. With these bombs, a very small number of men could be engaged in order to destroy an entire city. In these circumstances, we really have to consider the practicability of a policy of total disarmament, because that is what is really involved in the abolition of the Air Force. Nobody will tolerate the abolition of the Air Force unless they are prepared to sweep away armaments entirely.
We are in the condition now that total disarmament is the only practical policy before the nations of the world, and the fact that a first-class Power, Russia, has come before the nations with proposals for total disarmament is a very important event in the history of this subject. It is the case, I know, that as soon as Russia is mentioned in this connection, there is derision from the benches opposite. A few months ago I spent some weeks in that country, and I know that Russia is perfectly sincere in putting forward these proposals. She knows the perils of war more than any other country. Up to 1921 Russia had something like 6,000,000 men in the field. The whole country was being overrun and devastated by her own forces and those of her enemies, so she knows what war is. During the last five or six years she has achieved tremendous economic development, with the result that to-day she has behind her an enthusiasm for her regime which will give her as fine a fighting force as any the world possesses. For example, Russia is realising that other nations are concentrating upon their Air Forces, and I saw last August and September that they were doing exactly the same thing. After our relations with Russia were broken off, appeals were made to the country for contributions in order to develop an Air Force, and the young men members of the trade unions gave their spare time, and technicians put materials at the country's disposal for the building of air fleets.
Russia is in this position: She says, "If war is to be the order of the day with the nations of Europe and the rest of the world, we will take them upon their own ground." The Russian Government are no more inclined to pacifism
than the Government of this country; they are not pacifists in the sense that I am. They are realists, and they simply state, "If you say that war is to be the order of the day and that we have to have fleets of aeroplanes and other implements of war, then we are prepared to meet you on your own ground, but if you are willing that all armaments shall be scrapped, then we are prepared to face the future upon that basis." That is an absolutely common sense position, and as a result of what Russia has done for the present generation, and especially for young Russia, she will be able to put as fine an army in the field as any country on the face of the earth.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is going a little wide of the Amendment.

Mr. WELLOCK: I have trespassed in that direction because I maintain that this Amendment does carry with it total disarmament, and that I should be open to attack if I asked for abolition of the Air Force and were to leave the other Forces in being, as if we could have war according to toy rules on the basis of the battle of Hastings, or something of that kind. This Amendment carries with it total disarmament, and it is because I feel that it is better to realise its logical consequences that I have dealt with this wider question. Upon the general question, where we are dealing with the abolition of the Air Force itself, or with the abolition of all armaments whatever, we are faced with the question, "Is it practicable?" I am prepared to face that issue. We desire to destroy the effective means of carrying on war, and we have to face the question. "Is that a practicable proposition at the present time?" I maintain that it is, and we have only to realise the change of opinion that has taken place in this country and other countries during the last few years, to know that that is the case.
After all, what does practicability in this connection really mean? It means the recognition by the conscience of the world of the fact that the old method has to pass away and that a new method has to come in. If mankind generally were of that opinion, and were ready for a new regime, there would be the ground upon which we could make a complete change in our methods of outlook in regard to this question. There is
another question that concerns the practicability of this issue and it is this, Have we the machinery for carrying out our international life upon a peace basis? Although that machinery is not perfect at the present moment, it is sufficiently perfect to be put into operation and be made perfect as soon as it has adequate jobs to do. The reason why we do not make the League of Nations adequate to the needs of the times is that we do not trust it with the job it ought to be given, and what keeps us away is our belief in militarism. Once we give that up and make up our minds that we are going to take the straight road to peace and adopt the policy of intensive disarmament, the question of the machinery will very soon be solved.
With the indulgence of the House, I would like to give some idea of the change that has taken place in our own public opinion and in world public opinion on this issue. I want the Government to realise that they are playing with a very dangerous situation in allowing armaments to be piled up year after year when all the time a public opinion is developing which will be adverse to the Government if a war situation arises in the future. A few quotations will show the change which has taken place in very important quarters. I will quote in the first place one or two extracts from statements by war correspondents and litterateurs. For instance, there is a writer with the popularity of H. G. Wells recommending the youth of this country to take up a position of personal resistance to war. He said quite recently, I think in the "Sunday Express":
The most effective resistance to the approach of another great war lies in the expressed determination of as many people as possible that they will have nothing to do with it, that they will not fight in it, work for it, nor pay taxes when it comes, whatever sort of war it may be.
Then there is the war correspondent, H. M. Tomlinson, who, writing in "Harper's Magazine" recently—last November or December, said:
Whoever may be the enemy, whatever may be the reason for a war, good citizens can have no part in it. I for one will not serve, will not help, will not pay, and am prepared to take the consequences.
Another, H. G. Nevinson, also writing recently, said:
All who take the oath of resistance must expect the treatment of other
martyrs, but for myself I see no other way to peace but this concentration in the form of a general strike against the warmongers.
The editor of the paper "John Bull," which has a tremendous circulation, in a leading article just before last Armistice Day, said:
The three words 'I will not' can make all war impossible from to-day on. We shall never abolish war until the peoples of all nations say flatly and finally to all those who have it in their power to provoke war, 'We will not fight.' 
The Minister for Air mentioned Cambridge. It may be interesting to note the changes that are taking place in our Universities. I will take Cambridge as an illustration.

Mr. SMITH-CARINGTON: On a point of Order, would it not be better for the hon. Member to get back to the Air Force and give us Signor Mussolini's views upon it?

Mr. WELLOCK: I think it is essential that the House should know what the country is thinking on this subject, and I do not think it has ever had the opportunity. As in our Parliamentary discussions we take the Votes for the Air Force, the Army and the Navy separately, it is difficult to deal with this subject as a general question, but I think we are entitled to do so on this Vote, for the reason that the Motion does imply total disarmament. In the Cambridge Union, on 8th March last year, they carried a motion by 213 votes to 138:
That lasting peace can only be secured by the people of England adopting an uncompromising attitude of pacifism.
That motion was spoken to by the hon. Member for the Brightside Division (Mr. Ponsonby), and the retiring president stated in the course of the debate:
He would demobolise the Army in three years, scrap the new cruiser programme, and sink the two new battleships just built in the North Sea.
Last November, also, the Cambridge Union carried a Motion by 277 votes to 143 expressing regret that the Government did not pursue a more farsighted and imaginative policy in its attempt to further the peace of the world. I think that on that occasion, the present Minister for Air spoke against the Motion, but the vote was two to one for it,
which shows what happens when even a Minister of the Government has to rely upon arguments and not upon party whips.
May I also make a few references to the changes in thought upon this question inside the Church? Take the case of a man like Shepherd, who has spoken to millions of people in this country over the wireless. He wrote a book recently called "The impatience of a parson" in which he proposed this resolution:
That the Anglican Union denies that the brotherhood of all men, irrespective of their class or nationality or race, requires men to slay their brother men; it is pledged to outlaw all war and to demand from its members that they should refuse to kill their brethren.
At its last Conference the Congregational Union found within it 100 ministers who were prepared to take a pledge against war and to work against war until war was abolished. The "Manchester Guardian" correspondent, describing this event, said:
Perhaps in years to come this Conference will be remembered chiefly because of the solemn service at which, this afternoon, 100 or more of our ministers publicly and solemnly covenanted with each other before God to have no part in and give no sanction to war. The pledge allowed no compromise, and to those who take it there is no longer any distinction in wars. Righteous or unrighteous, offensive or defensive, all war is sin.
In the Hartley Primitive Methodist College at Manchester recently 50 students asked to be enrolled in the Primitive Methodist Crusade against war. Before very long those young men will be occupying the pulpits in this country, and when a young man takes hold of an idea like this, which he feels to be of paramount importance, one can well believe that he will be preaching the idea constantly in his pulpit. The Primitive Methodist denomination, at its annual meeting last year, passed a resolution:
That all war is a violation of the spirit and principles of Christ, and therefore should never be countenanced by the Church.
A similar resolution was passed by the Congregational Union—whether the Union for all Wales or for the greater part of Wales I am not certain. It is by virtue of these changes in the thought of the country that we were able to have such results as came from the peace letter
organised by the hon. Member for the Brightside Division. It will be in the memory of the House that not long ago a petition was presented to this House signed by something like 130,000 people in this country saying:
We, the undersigned, convinced that all disputes between nations are capable of settlement either by diplomatic negotiation or by some form of international arbitration, hereby solemnly declare that we shall refuse to support or, in the war, do service for, any Government which resorts to arms.
Before I sit down I would like to say one or two words about similar changes in other countries. Herr Paul Löbe, President of the German Reichstag, stated on 11th October:
The day will come when the youth of all countries will refuse all war service.
If hon. Members of this House were asked who was probably the outstanding character in the literature of Europe to-day, they would probably say it was Romain Rolland. This writer is now definitely devoting himself to the abolition of war, and he is concentrating on appealing to the young people of the world to make up their minds that they personally will have nothing more to do with war. With that movement he is sweeping right across the world at the present moment. This is what he said recently:
A War Resistance International has been founded. It comprises 20 States. It has a non-political character. It keeps outside party politics, as it condemns the violence used by parties. It is based on respect for human life. Its fundamental principle, which no honest man can refute, is expressed in the following declaration: 'War is a crime against humanity. We are therefore determined not to support any kind of war and to strive for the removal of all the causes of war.' 
As a result of this kind of declaration by men of such eminence as I have described, letters, similar to that which I have already mentioned as having been signed so heavily in this county, are at the present time being signed in America, Holland, France and Germany, and in one or two other countries. In Germany a concentration was made in a certain area in Saxony recently and, after a few weeks of propaganda, 90,000 signatures were secured to this letter. More recently a special propaganda was made in the West of Germany and up to date they have received about 140,000 signatures
for the same letter. There have been, during quite recent times, important modifications made in the programmes of the various countries of the world as a result of the very powerful peace agitation going on in these various countries. In Germany quite recently they have turned down a new naval programme——

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member must really not refer to naval and military programmes.

Mr. WELLOCK: I will abide by your ruling, and I will put it all in one sentence by saying that I was going to give half a dozen instances where tremendous modifications of naval or military programmes had been made in one way or another, modifications which gave some indication of the change in mentality that has taken place throughout the whole world. That being the case, it only remains for me to say that in my opinion what is required to-day is to realise that we are waiting for a nation that has the courage to follow the logic of that which has been preached in one way or another even by such Governments as the one in office to-day. In this country we all profess to believe in peace and to be opposed to war of every kind. Yet, in spite of this growing public opinion, which is a world public opinion, we are afraid to trust each other. The Prime Minister said, in reply to the petition brought to the House by the hon. Member for Brightside, that he thought that would mean the bringing down of this country. In my opinion, the Prime Minister was leaving entirely out of account the moral factor. If we could take the initiative in such a step as is indicated by the Amendment before the House, I believe it would increase our position morally throughout the world. No nation on the fare of the earth would ever dream of attacking us in any shape or form. What is there to fear? We say we have to look after our Empire, but if we accepted by international agreement either the abolition of our Air Force or of our armaments, we should be in the same position as every other country. We know that in regard to India we are afraid of Russia, but if Russia disarmed as we disarmed, and as I believe she would, then we should be on the same footing as any other
nation, and, according to our willingness to co-operate and assist, our prosperity would be secured.
Humanity has abolished boundaries, or at least armed boundaries in very large areas. The armed boundary between Canada and the United States has been abolished and also the boundaries between the Argentine and Chile and between Norway and Sweden, while, as far as the self-governing parts of the Empire are concerned, there are no armed frontiers. If we would give the same kind of trust and freedom in India and Egypt and every other part of our Empire, and adopt the same policy of cooperation and willingness to consider mutual interests, we should have no need whatever to fear any disturbances there. The great need of the present day is the manifestation of moral courage. The whole world is waiting for that manifestation, and the country that is prepared to take the initiative in giving the lead in the direction of drastic disarmament and of air disarmament, which means, as I have said, total disarmament, would have the backing of every nation on the earth or, if not of their Governments, at least of their peoples. Sooner or later the Governments will have to realise the change that is taking place in the mentality of the people, and when they do they will take the bold step. Our country is capable of taking that step and, as soon as our young men and women realise that, it is more courageous to put down the rifle than to take it up, as soon as they realise that, the world is waiting for that courageous nation, I believe our country will be ready to take that courageous step. We have done big things in the past. We shall never be renowned any more for military achievement, nor will any other nation. The only way to win renown in the future is to go in the opposite direction, and to trust the forces, which have been developed in the last 20 years in particular, namely, the moral forces, and to trust the processes which are dependent on those moral forces and which carry with them trust in humanity at large from one end of the world to the other. The country which is prepared to show that trust will be, in my view, the future leader of civilisation.

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: We have just listened to some very eloquent and sincere addresses from members of the Socialist party with respect to the horrors of war, and why, in their opinion, this nation should take the lead in disarmament and particularly in aerial disarmament. If the House will allow me, I would like to bring hon. Members back from the rarified atmosphere of idealism to the ordinary atmosphere of plain facts and common-sense. The addresses which we have heard tonight should not have been addressed to this House at all. I imagine that there is no hon. Member who has not as great a horror of war as any hon. Member sitting on the Labour Benches. The speeches we have heard from hon. Members above the Gangway should have been addressed to the other nations of the world. Their speeches have been exceedingly good propaganda, but not for the British House of Commons. Why do not hon. Members above the Gangway face the facts? They must understand that the millennium has not yet arrived, and that we are human beings with all the faults and failings common to human beings.
Surely Members of the House of Commons should have enough commonsense to be able to face the facts of the case and speak accordingly. There is no one in this House who wants war. Hon. Members have quoted from speeches delivered by people of authority pointing out that the horrors of future aerial warfare are appalling. Unfortunately my view is that the people of this country are not yet fully aware of what those horrors may be. Only a few weeks ago I had occasion to look into the Royal Army Medical Corps book to see some of the methods which are to be used as antidotes against the different kinds of gas which may be used in aerial warfare, and they are absolutely appalling. I am sure that no one in this country wishes for war in any shape or form. Hon. Members tell us to disarm, and they say that if this country makes a gesture and leads the way other nations will follow. What has been done up to the present? Has any other nation in the world proceeded as far as we have in the way of disarmament? We send representatives to the naval disarmament conference——

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member must not discuss naval disarmament on this Amendment.

Dr. DAVIES: We have made definite proposals for disarmament which have not been accepted by other civilised nations. Is it the wish of hon. Members above the Gangway that we should leave ourselves absolutely defenceless and trust to Providence? Is that their view? Surely they have heard that adequate defence is the strongest inducement for peace. Take, for example, ordinary civil life. Hon. Members say that they would not fight or take up arms in protection of their own country. Does that mean that they would not take up arms to defend their own kith and kin or their own wives and families, and that they would be Pacifists and stand idly by? Will they put that theory into practice? We have a number of men known as burglars who prey on society. I wonder how many hon. Members above the Gangway, when they go to bed, leave open their windows and the front door and put their trust in those men? Never mind humanity as a whole; consider first the humanity of your own country. If hon. Members are so fond of peace as they profess to be, then why not leave their doors unlocked and trust to the honour and honesty of everybody. How many hon. Members would do that?
The Labour party have supported very strongly the settlement put forward by the Mover and Seconder of this Amendment; they are strong advocates of peace and disarmament and they urge this wicked Government to adopt aerial disarmament. What about the trade unions? Are not trade unions organised bodies of men to defend their own interest? Will hon. Members now suggest the disbandment of trade unions because in future they are going to trust to the honesty of the masters? Not a bit of it. And yet in an ordinary civil dispute where there is no danger to life or limb they will not run the risk of dealing with a question like that. They organise the workmen to defend themselves, and yet they have the effrontery to ask the Government to do away with all aerial armaments, scrap military aeroplanes, trust to the good will of other nations, and the possibility that they will follow suit. What would happen if we adopt a policy like that? We should be defenceless
and we should be wiped out of existence in a night. That would be a deliberate inducement to some other nation to come here and conquer this country with all its wealth and possessions.
Some hon. Members think the view I am expressing is a ridiculous and a stupid idea, but I ask them: Are they going to disband the trade unions and trust to the honesty of the masters? What is being put forward from the Labour Benches is merely a matter of theory and idealism and a question of propaganda. I really cannot make up my mind whether the sentiments expressed by hon. Members above the Gangway are the sentiments of Machiavellian subtlety or childlike innocence. I am inclined to think they are the former.
Having myself a horror of a future war, I ask them in all sincerity to face the facts. I ask them to remember that when they speak here their speeches are reported, and they may create a wrong impression. Those who read those speeches may be inclined to think that the Labour party is the only party which believes in peace, and that the Conservative party, and perhaps the Liberal party, are deadly opposed to peace, and are in favour of piling up armaments for death and destruction. We have been told in this Debate that Russia is willing to disarm, and that she expressed that view at the Peace Conference, but unfortunately no one believes that view, and the opinion throughout the world is that Russia does not mean it. Hon. Members above the Gangway should think of this country. They should think of their own people and recognise that the best way to prevent war is to be adequately prepared for war. When the millennium comes, and all the nations of the world have proclaimed their horror of war, that will be the time for hon. Members above the Gangway to make such speeches as they have delivered to-night.

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: The second part of the argument used by the hon. Member for Royton (Dr. Davies) was the argument used previous to 1914, namely, that the best way to preserve the peace of the world was to be highly prepared in armaments.

Dr. V. DAVIES: Adequately prepared.

Mr. SMITH: That argument was used by Germany in precisely the same way in which the hon. Member used it. One conclusion upon which all hon. Members will be agreed is that, by pursuing a policy of maximum armaments, we are not pursuing a policy of peace. I think it is important to distinguish between, on the one hand, a trade union and the methods which it uses for settling disputes, and, on the other hand, the methods which are open to a Government. There is only one institution in society that has the right to settle a dispute by the method of arms and that is a Government. We are not saying that there should be no quarrels between nations; we are only arguing that it would be better if those quarrels were settled less often by warfare than has been the case in the past.
We say, in the first place, that we are not satisfied with the contribution of His Majesty's Government, through the League of Nations, towards aerial disarmament, and we want to put forward an alternative policy. I understand that the air policy of the Government is based upon the Declaration of 1923. If I am wrong in that, I shall be glad to be corrected. The statement was made, at the Imperial Conference in 1923, that the policy of the British Government, so far as the Air Forces were concerned, was based upon the necessity for the maintenance by Great Britain of a Home Defence Force of sufficient strength to give adequate protection against air attack by the strongest Air Forces within striking distance of her shores. I take it that the Government are still pursuing that policy. I assume that, following that statement, we shall seek to make our Air Force at least as strong numerically as that of France, and it is from that point of view that we want to criticise the air policy of His Majesty's Government to-night.
Judging from the figures given by the Secretary of State this afternoon, we have something like 900 machines at the present time, whereas France had, at the end of 1926, something like 1,350. I assume, therefore, that it is the intention of the present Government steadily to expand the British Air Service year after year. The right hon. Gentleman said this afternoon that he contemplates a definite further advance in pursuance of the 1923 policy. I can quite understand
why the right hon. Gentleman is so very proud, and, as I think, rightly proud, of what has been achieved since that policy was inaugurated. I remember that a very distinguished British publicist, speaking in America a few weeks ago, said that the British nation was only separated by five minutes from invasion. While that may be, perhaps, a slight exaggeration, it is clear, on the basis of our present achievement, that this City of London is only separated by minutes from possible destruction, and, therefore, if we once concede that the only way to protect this nation against that invasion is by building up an Air Service to meet it, I can understand the foundations of the policy of 1923, the description of that policy as a defence policy, and the statement that the Air Service has been inaugurated and developed in order to defend this country against an invasion which, at any time, is only a few minutes' distance from our shores.
From my reading of the reports of the Air Force demonstrations last year, I gather that certain attempts were made to try out the effectiveness of the air machine for defensive purposes, for preventing this disaster which is only a few minutes away from us, and which, according to quotations that have been given to-night, might quite easily be successful in destroying the whole population of the City of London during a single invasion. I should like to ask the Secretary of State if he will tell us to what extent we can rely upon the British Air Service as a defensive instrument—to what extent it is true to say that we have in our hands, after this unparalleled development since 1923, an instrument which we can be assured will really be effective in defence against an aggressive air force. According to the best judgment of the men who watched these operations last July, there is no one who is prepared to say that we are reasonably immune from air attack from the Continent, and I should like very much to hear through the Under-Secretary, when he comes to reply, what is the considered judgment of the Secretary of State as to the extent to which he can assure the British nation that the whole of this development in air defence has produced an instrument which is effective.
It seems to us on this side of the House that the mere fact that we are concentrating
in the way that we are upon the defence of London against air attack is the supreme proof that the only way to defend one's country is to attack the enemy's country. The mere fact of concentrating on London in this way, and assuming that we shall be visited by hostile aircraft, is the clearest possible proof that the major service of aircraft is always that of attack, and I should be grateful for some clear indication as to the position of the British Air Service in 1928 from that point of view. I can understand that, so long as we believe that we are exposed as a nation to that kind of danger, and that there is no alternative except to build up aeroplane for aeroplane in order to defend ourselves, there is nothing to be done in the name of security or of peace except to accept the 1923 policy of having as large an Air Service as the largest that can be found within striking distance of these shores. It is because we believe that there is some alternative way to peace and security that we are raising this matter for discussion to-night.
We give it as our view, and an immense amount of expert testimony has been quoted to-night to the same effect, that an Air Service cannot guarantee this nation from invasion, that it is really a poor instrument to set up as an alternative to an invading Air Service; and it was from that point of view that we watched with such interest the negotiations at Geneva last year for the regulation of Air Services. I understand that the net result of those discussions, so far as the experts are concerned, is that it is possible to inaugurate an international method of regulation, and that it would be practicable to limit, in respect of both numbers and horse-power, the military Air Services used by the various Governments of the world. That, at all events, does bring an international scheme within the realm of possibility, and, if there were the necessary will behind the Governments of the world, there is nothing to prevent that scheme from being brought into operation.
The real difficulty that has emerged at Geneva, and it is a difficulty with which the British Government have to deal, is that you cannot work out a satisfactory international scheme for regulating military aircraft if you do not at the same time take account of civilian aircraft.
From that point of view, there is a very important suggestion, arising from the work of the Commission last year, to which I would like to draw attention. The International Preparatory Commission at Geneva said very definitely that, while they were in favour of international regulation of military aircraft, they were not in favour of any attempt at international regulation of civilian aircraft, on the grounds that it was not practicable and that it would involve a restraint of civilian development where restraint was a disadvantage to the progress of the world. But, on the other hand, they were agreed that this does not prevent some attempt being made to separate civil from military aviation and to take the greatest possible care that the two branches of development are not confused, and not blended with one another.
From that point of view; I should like to draw attention to the situation which arose in 1919. An attempt was then made to separate military from civil aviation. In the disarmament of Germany, Austria, Hungary and Bulgaria in 1919 the Allied experts went so far as to carry out the policy of total disarmament so far as aviation was concerned in a military sense. There four States were subjected to the complete abolition of their military Air Services, and it was understood in those days that other nations would follow the example which those nations provided. In practice, however, it has been found that, although Germany has no military air service, to-day she is potentially a very formidable power in the air, because of her highly-developed civilian air craft, and not the least difficulties which have been encountered in discussing general disarmament have arisen from that situation.
I should like to ask the Minister, arising from this practical situation, whether he is clearly differentiating the two services for which he is responsible, between military aircraft on the one hand and civilian on the other, and whether, from that point of view, he does not think there is a strong case for working out the whole idea of control from the international side. The position we are advancing is based upon the special consideration of aircraft. We see perfectly clearly that, if we are to get the best use out of civilian aircraft from a technical
point of view, international control and regulation is indispensable. The air service differs from the land service and from the naval service in that it must of necessity pass over all the countries in the world, and, from the technical point of view, in a service which is in its infancy there is everything to be said for deliberate international regulations from the very beginning. The Air Minister referred, for example, to the difficulties he had had with Persia in trying to work out a system of international air development. Perhaps the reason for that difficulty was that the air service is of so national a character, and still subject to such important military qualifications, that that particular nation hesitated on those very grounds. If we had an international air service, I am sure the objection raised by the Persian Government would largely fall to the ground.
10.0 p.m.
We therefore put forward the point of view that it would be a far better investment for security and peace if we had, in place of national military air services, international regulation and control, but we are driven back to the position that we can never hope to get control of military air services unless we include the wider conception of the regulation of the whole of the air services. It would be quite possible for Germany to convert the whole of her civilian aircraft, or a large part of it, into military aircraft within an hour or two. Indeed I was told in Germany last summer that they are in the habit of dropping parcels for postal delivery and going through exercises of that kind which may be easily substituted by putting a bomb in place of a parcel, and it is because of this very intimate connection between aircraft for civilian and for military purposes that we feel the two services must be taken together in any serious consideration of how to regulate these new fighting services of the world. Therefore, we should like to see the Government advocate a wider system of international regulation, not only for the military but for the civilian side of aircraft, as a condition of bringing about security among the nations. We hold the view very strongly that there is no road to security merely through developing national military air services. We
hold that that line leads more or less inevitably to the situation of war. We see ourselves engaged in a competition year after year with the French Government, and quite conceivably with other Governments on the Continent, for building up more and more powerful military air services. We should like, therefore, to suggest to the Government the alternative of international regulation of a service which, by its technical nature, is international and which shall bring us within sight of putting our thought and energy into a development calculated to be of benefit to civilisation instead of being, as we are at present, always in fear and uncertainty, like Sir Hugh Trenchard himself, that we do not know whether this thing we are doing is going to be good or bad for civilisation. We therefore press very strongly that the whole principle and method of international regulation for civilian and military purposes should be explored as an alternative to the 1923 policy of national control and national sovereignty in this very important service.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): Hon. Members who bring forward motions in favour of diarmament can always be certain of getting a sympathetic hearing in this House even from those who do not quite agree with them. If, so far as the Air Service is concerned, we have not yet made any great progress towards an agreement with the great Powers, it is certainly not the fault of this country—very far from it. We have set a striking example in the opposite direction, with very little result so far as other countries are concerned. This is a matter in which facts speak more plainly than words, and I should like to examine our record in this respect since the Armistice. When hostilities ceased, we had 200 service squadrons with 3,300 first-line aircraft in those squadrons. To-day, we have 69 service squadrons with under 800 first-line aircraft in them. So much for material. The figures for personnel tell the same story, but with even greater emphasis. In November, 1918, we had 30,122 officers and 263,400 men. To-day our total personnel, men and officers, barely exceeds the figure of officers alone in 1918. No other nation in the world can produce figures for Air Force reductions since the Armistice that can compare
with those. We have not only shown the way, but we have gone steadily on our way whether others followed us or not. So much so, that not only this House but also the nation, a few years ago came to the conclusion that we had gone further than was consistent with our national security, and a modest scheme of expansion was adopted. Even so, we have barely more than a half-power standard compared with our nearest neighbour. In the hope that our example might be followed, we put such bounds to our scheme of expansion that we have to-day the most modest air programme of any other first-class Power. Even Russia—according to the Hon. Member fors Stourbridge (Mr. Wellock)—lends point and emphasis to her desire for total and absolute disamament by maintaining a formidable programme of military air development.
The matter can be put in yet another way. If you take 1925 as the basic year and compare the course of air expenditure in France, Italy and the United States during the three succeeding years, you get the following significant result. As compared with 1925, British air expenditure in 1926 was lower by 2 per cent.; in 1927 it was lower than the figure of 1925 by 6. per cent., and in 1928, for which these Estimates provide, our expenditure will be lower by 10 per cent. than in the basic year 1925. The figures of France show a reduction of 10 per cent. in 1926, but an increase of 27 per cent. over the basic year in 1927, and an increase of 45 per cent. in 1928.

Commander BELLAIRS: Is that the Army and Navy together?

Sir P. SASSOON: No, that only deals with revealed air expenditure. Italian air expenditure for 1926 was no less than 56 per cent. greater than that for 1925, and has been kept at the same figure in 1927, and again in 1928. In the United States the increases during the past three years over the year 1925 have been 8 per cent., 16 per cent. and 33 per cent. respectively. So that whoever is leading in this competition, if competition it be, for air armaments, it is certainly not this country. We have shown steady reductions in air expenditure, while all other countries have shown steady increases. I do not pretend that mere numbers
count for everything. We should, indeed, be in a bad way if they did. We have sufficient confidence in the quality of our personnel and machines to believe that the actual disparity is, perhaps, far less than the figures would indicate, but the figures are proof enough that we have a clear conscience in this matter of air disarmament. No other country is more exposed than we are to air attack. That is an accident of geography which cannot be cured, but it will be folly seeing how exposed we are in that respect to allow——

Mr. MONTAGUE: May I ask what the hon. Gentleman means by that? In what way are we more exposed than other nations?

Sir P. SASSOON: Geographically we are more exposed. We are an island, and our capital is very near the coast, nearer to the coast than the capital of almost any foreign nation. I think that is rather obvious. Therefore, in those circumstances it would be folly to let our zeal for international peace, or our desire to be relieved of the burden of taxation, outrun discretion, and to leave this great country with its crowded centres of population open to air attack. The hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Dalton) in his speech this afternoon addressed a question to my right hon. Friend. He said, "Do you expect a long period of peace, and if you do, why are you adding four squadrons to your Estimates?" We certainly would not be expecting a long period of peace if we felt that we were unable to defend ourselves if we were attacked. Last week hon. Members were invited to contemplate the spectacle of a man being bayoneted on the Floor of this House or of women and children being bombed within convenient view of the Terrace. All that was lacking to complete the argument were the victims. It is to be hoped that the victims always will be lacking, but, in the present state of man's development, the abolition of our Air Forces would be the surest and most certain method of converting the right hon. Gentleman's rhetorical visions into terrible realities.
The disarmament question is one which applies equally to all nations. It is not a question simply of what we are prepared to do, or what Russia offers to do. All nations must act together before talk
about disarmament can crystallise into anything which will bring nearer the peace of the world. We may doubt, and many certainly do doubt, the sincerity of Russia in this offer. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why do you not give it a chance?"] Supposing all doubts about the good faith of the Russians were removed, even then it would not be possible for us to accept the offer unless all other great Powers were prepared to do the same.

Mr. WALLHEAD: May I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that the best way of fighting out these proposals is by discussion, and by meeting them in conference?

Sir P. SASSOON: There is sufficient discussion going on about disarmament; I do not think that that is bothering us. The hon. Member queried why anybody should doubt Russia. Is it our fault, if those who are more within reach of Russia and who are nearer to Russia than are we in this country, or even than India is, pay more attention to the record of blood in Russia in the past 10 years, to the methods they have adopted in suppressing political opposition and denying freedom of speech, than to the recent invitation on the part of Russia to complete and universal disarmament? The British Empire, exposed as it then would be in every part of the world to the envy and greed of the unscrupulous, is asked to accept this glorious and noble gesture by being the first to strip itself of its defences. Surely it would be more reasonable to suggest that Russia, that vast country whose very size has always been its greatest protection, should be the one to take the first step in deeds, and not only in words, and reassure the nations who live under her shadow.
The Amendment calls attention to the need for international agreement. That is the first essential that would be necessary before any single nation, least of all the British Empire, with its vast world-wide responsibilities, could safely reduce its armaments below the minimum level necessary for its own defence. It was in that spirit that our representative at the Preparatory Commission approached the question of Air armaments. The measure of agreement reached there may not, perhaps, carry matters very far, but an essential step was taken by
agreeing upon the method by which Air armaments can be measured and limited. The restriction of the numbers and horse power of military machines, and of the number of total effectives employed in Air Forces is, it has been provisionally agreed by the Preparatory Commission, a method by which this might be achieved.
We can fairly claim that such an agreement as to methods was achieved very largely owing to British initiative. We showed our sincerity in taking to Geneva a simple formula and one which we hoped would be easily transmuted into deeds and not lost in a wilderness of words. While considering that formula with other powers and continuing to press for something simple rather than something complicated, we did not take up an attitude of undue rigidity, but by concessions we secured a degree of provisional agreement that has not so far been forthcoming in the case of land or sea armaments. The more difficult task will, no doubt, come when the numbers to be allotted to each nation have to be decided. On that question I would remind hon. Members that when this House decided upon the modest programme of expansion to which I have referred, it did so because it was advised and it believed that our then existing air forces were less than consistent with our national safety. This was the view which was taken by three successive Governments. It is reasonable, therefore, to point out that we are dealing with a Service which is substantially below the minimum which was approved of in the past. It is not as if circumstances have changed for the better since our programme was adopted; they have changed, but in a direction which has increased our needs rather than diminished them.
The whole question of air disarmament bristles with difficulties. The Mover of the Amendment suggested that perhaps some of these difficulties might be removed if the whole of civil aviation was put under a Board of International Control. One may well doubt whether such a measure would ever be of practical utility and, frankly, such a solution in the present state of international relations is impossible of attainment. The question at Geneva turned on the possibility of dissociating military and civil aviation completely, and the whole trend of opinion was unfavourable to any scheme
of control of the latter. Even if we were willing to accept international control, no other nation in Europe or in the world would look at it. It is just as practical to suggest that all the shipping lines and the railways in the world should be under international control, on the ground that ships and railways are used for the transport of troops in time of war. You cannot set the clock back and abolish flying altogether. Even if it were possible, it would not be desirable. The existence of civil aviation carries with it the necessity for military air armaments of a certain type. The day may come when the ordinary civil passenger-carrying machine may be as helpless against a military air fighter as the liner would be against a battleship.
Even to-day I believe that civil aircraft in war would play a very limited role. But abolish military aviation altogether and civil aviation would be supreme and the nation with a numerous fleet of civil aircraft might be able to dominate its weaker neighbours. That is not an argument for swollen armaments, because a very few military machines will be able to defeat a vastly superior number of civilian aircraft, but as long as civil aviation exists—and it can confer an immense boon on the world, especially upon the British Empire, with its vast stretches of territory in which very often other means of communication are lacking—so long will military air armaments be necessary. I should be the last person to suggest that civilian aviation is the only kind of aviation which confers benefits on the world. I like to think military aircraft and the Royal Air Force have accomplished much during the last two years, and are still doing fine constructive work for the benefit of humanity. In Iraq and the Straits Settlements the mapping, which was very bad, is being carried out by the Air Force—who have undertaken photographic surveys—and it was the personnel of the Air Force flying between Bagdad and Cairo who paved the way for the service which Imperial Airways are now successfully operating. Flights from Cairo to the Cape, which are now a matter of annual routine, and from Cairo to Nigeria will, I am sure, be the precursors of regular civil services in the future. So long as armed force is the arbitrament between men we cannot surrender the method of preventing savage warfare, which of all
methods has been proved to be the least costly in lives and money.
I have referred to the work of the Air Force in the desert. During the last few weeks it has been engaged in Iraq in the difficult task of repelling the raids of Wahabis, who crossed the frontier and were engaged in the wanton pillage and massacre of innocent men, women and children. Iraq has an open desert frontier of 1,000 miles and no other arm but the Air Force can operate in these wild barren stretches of country, so far from their base or from a railway. It is indeed fortunate that they have been there at this juncture. These happenings in Southern Iraq demonstrate the impossibility and undesirability of schemes for complete and absolute disarmament, which some hon. Members urge in the imperfect world in which we live. I shudder to think, and anyone with the instincts of humanity would do the same, of the orgy of rapine and pillage which would have gone on amongst the unfortunate tribes in this territory but for the protection afforded them by the Air Force and the deterrent and punitive action it has been able to take against the marauders.
I do not wish, however, to appear in any way unsympathetic to the aspirations of hon. Members opposite for a better and more peaceful world. We are not obstructionists, but we face the facts and try to take this imperfect world as we find it, without despairing of rendering it better. In this matter of disarmament it is no good looking for quick and dramatic results. No good results will come, I am sure, from dramatic gestures, whether they he sincere or insincere. It is only by long and patient negotiations and by the gradual building up of a better and more united sense of public opinion in the great nations of the world, that real results may be hoped for. They will be slow in coming. Little as we can accept the Amendment in its present form, we can join with hon. Members opposite, who are supporters of the Amendment, in hoping that one day they will come.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: The Under-Secretary of State began his argument by telling the House that we had reduced Air armaments while every other country had been increasing them, and in order to
support this statement he gave us the actual figures, and explained that whereas the number of our squadrons had been 300 in 1918, it had been reduced to 69 in the Estimates which are before us now. That appears to me to be the queerest method of making a calculation that I have yet seen in this House. 1918, the year which the Under-Secretary takes as the basis, is the year of the maximum expansion, due to the outbreak of War. In 1918 those 300 squadrons represented the Air Force that we had built up in expectation of a continuance of the War, the Air Force which we had built up in anticipation of an attack on Berlin; and the fact that the Under-Secretary of State now comes forward and explains how peaceful the Government is because it does not maintain to-day an Air Force which was built up for an attack on Berlin, shows us how very modest are the requirements, in the way of disarmament, which satisfy the Conservative party.
If we wish to appraise what the progress of disarmament can be in the air, it is far better to take the figures since the peace establishment was laid down. Our peace establishment was carefully laid down on a permanent basis in 1919, and the number of squadrons which was then accepted by the Government was 31. What has been the story since then? In 1925 the number had increased to 54 squadrons, in 1926 to 61, last year to 63, in the White Paper of this year to 69, and the White Paper also tells us that next year there will be an increase to 73. According to further statements which have been made it is intended within a short space of time to increase the the total to between 80 and 90 squadrons. We are justified in asking, where is all this going eventually to lead? The kind of programme which is put forward here is very reminiscent indeed of the programmes that used to he discussed before the War. We have the same expansion, the same great expenditure, and a rather uninterested House listening in silence. Where we had references to Germany in those days, we have to-day references to France, in the case of the Air Force, and to the United States in the case of the Navy. Then we had statements just like that made by the Under-Secretary to the effect that everyone was building for defence and nobody was building for war—all this
leading, unless checked, inevitably, to the same result.
The Mover and the Seconder of the Amendment painted pictures of what another war would mean with the incursion of an Air Force. There was not a word of exaggeration in anything that they said, and, indeed, their pictures were no more brutal and horrible than those which have been painted by the Secretary of State for Air in previous speeches in this House. But when one listens to speeches such as that which the Under-Secretary has just delivered, what impresses one is the contrast between the brutality of the pictures painted by those on the Government Front Bench and the timidity and poverty of any suggestion which they offer to deal with the evils they describe. The Under-Secretary, apparently, looks with some satisfaction on the proposals which the Government put forward in the Disarmament Conference at Geneva, but to what did those proposals amount? The Government put forward proposals for an agreement as to the number of first-line aeroplanes and the Under-Secretary spoke of an agreement about horsepower. As a matter of fact, the British Government at first resisted, and only accepted under pressure, any agreement about horse-power. They refused to accept any agreement about aeroplanes in reserve, and, I think, the Under-Secretary was mistaken about personnel. He said they came to an agreement, but, according to my reading of the Paper, they came to no conclusion at all about personnel, and they did not even discuss the question of ratio—of what was to be the relative size of our Air Force compared with the air forces of other nations.
These are very feeble results, and the point which we make in this Amendment is that the difficulties which showed themselves at Geneva—and I do not depreciate those difficulties—arose mainly because the proposals were for a mere diminution in air forces. As a matter of fact, from the point of view of administrative possibility, the simple proposal is the larger proposal for abolition which this Amendment contains. I should like to explain what the Amendment proposes. The Under-Secretary spoke as if we were proposing the entire abandonment of all British aeroplanes and the disappearance of the whole of
the British Air Force without asking any other country to take similar steps. The hon. Gentleman spent a large part of his time in attacking an Amendment which we have not moved. I do not for the moment say anything about Army or Navy co-operating squadrons, but when you come to the independent Air Force, the purpose of the fighting aeroplane in that Force is to fight other fighting aeroplanes, and if you are seeking security against France or any other nation, you can obtain that security if you have no fighting aeroplanes at all, providing France and the other nations are in the same position. The Under-Secretary said, what one would expect him to say, that if we put forward such a proposal as this, it would not be looked at by the other nations. But somebody must take the lead, somebody must put it forward and support it, morally and politically, or else the proposal will never even be discussed. Put it forward. Supposing it was not at first accepted, I venture to say that in a few years the British Government would no more regret that they had put that proposal forward than they regret to-day that six years ago at the Washington Conference, alone in the world, they put forward the proposal for the abolition of the submarine. No other country would look at it then, but now we are watching the re-birth of that proposal on the initiative of the United States.
I come now to the last question with which the Under-Secretary dealt. Undoubtedly, in our opinion, the greatest failure of the Government at the Conference was that they entirely omitted to put forward any proposals for the control of civil and commercial aviation. Last year it was denied by Members who spoke with great expert authority, that commercial machines could be used for bombing purposes, but I take it, from all the speeches in this discussion tonight, that it is now accepted in every part of the House that all these commercial machines, the Imperial Airway machines, could be transformed into bombers within a week, or at any rate within a fortnight.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: In 24 hours.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: That means then that these great commercial fleets which the nations of the world are building up
in competition with each other are, in fact, reserved for bombing against the contingency of the next war. This is a difficulty. The bombers are the offensive weapons, the attacking force, in air war, and, to take even the Government's proposals, if they are going to limit the fighting aeroplanes alone, it means that there is going to be a reduction of the defensive aeroplanes, while the offensive aeroplanes continue unregulated and unchecked. There is only one solution, and that is that now, while the whole of this great industry is still in its infancy and before vested interests that you cannot break down have grown up, commercial aviation should be put under international control, under the supervision of the League of Nations.
There is nothing fantastic or impracticable in that proposal. There is no industry in the world which is so naturally marked out for international control as that of commercial aviation. The speech of the Secretary of State this evening has shown it. How can you create an air route to India unless by international assent? What is holding up the air route to India at this moment? The fact that owing to the action of Persia international assent cannot be obtained. There is nothing impracticable in the proposal that these great air services should be put into the hands of holding companies, in which the nationals of the different great air States would have their agreed proportion of stock, companies whose reports would be submitted to the League of Nations. If that were done, the air traveller of the future would proceed across Europe very much like the railway traveller does to-day under the International Wagons-Lits Company, with its headquarters at Brussels and with an international staff, which goes right across the frontier of Europe and takes you even as far as Asia Minor.

Lieut.-Colonel LAMBERT WARD: How will that prevent commercial machines being turned into bombers?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: It will prevent them because, under these circumstances, you would have all your spare parts, all your factories in different parts of the world, so that they could not be assembled immediately. An international service, if it were under international control, could be so devised that it would
not be an advantage to any nation if war broke out. Some hon. Members in their speeches, and one hon. Member in his interruption, seemed to be rather amused at the references to the international control of these services under the League of Nations. The Under-Secretary of State suggested that we must be patient and go slowly, and that we must not put too great a burden upon the League of Nations at this stage. That is quite a mistake. Our view is emphatic on that point. Now is the time, when the memories of the War have not yet died away, and when there is still some belief in men's minds that another war may be averted, to utilise the League of Nations; and the Under-Secretary is quite mistaken in imagining that something is going to happen, some indefinite number of years in the future, that will make it any easier than it is to-day. In the last three years, the whole disarmament movement has been slowing down, and the Government shows far less interest

in it than they did even three years ago. The disappearance of Lord Cecil from the Government has removed the only man with any powerful belief in this movement. For that reason, we know that when we put forward these Amendments, we are not putting them forward because we expect to convince the Government or the Members opposite. We do not. We are looking forward to a time beyond this present Government——

Mr. CAMPBELL: Very far seeing!

Mr.LEES-SMITH: We are looking forward to a time, which we hope will arrive before it is too late, when there will be Government of the Left simultaneously in two or three nations in Europe, and then we shall invite them to take the path which the great mass of their people are already anxious they should tread.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 215; Noes, 116.

Division No. 30.]
AYES.
[10.47 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Couper, J. B.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn. N.)
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)


Albery, Irving James
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Harland, A.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Harrison, G. J. C.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Haslam, Henry C.


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)


Balniel, Lord
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hills, Major John Waller


Bennett, A. J.
Drewe, C.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Betterton, Henry B.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Elliott, Major Walter E.
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Ellis, R. G.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Blundell, F. N.
England, Colonel A
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Hudson, Capt. A.U. M.(Hackney, N.)


Brass, Captain W.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Hurst, Gerald B.


Briggs, J. Harold
Fermoy, Lord
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Ford, Sir P. J.
Iveagh, Countess of


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Forrest, W.
Kindersley, Major Guy M.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Fraser, Captain Ian
King, Commodore Henry Douglas


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Lamb, J. Q.


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Little, Dr. E. Graham


Buchan, John
Ganzonl, Sir John
Long, Major Eric


Burman, J. B.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Looker, Herbert William


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere


Caine, Gordon Hall
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Lumley, L. R


Campbell, E. T.
Goff, Sir Park
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen


Carver, Major W. H.
Gower, Sir Robert
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Cassels, J. D.
Grace, John
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Macintyre, Ian


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
McLean, Major A.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Macmillan, Captain H.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Grotrian, H. Brent
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol,N.)
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Colman, N. C. D.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Maltland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-


Cope, Major William
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Margesson, Captain D.
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Remer. J. R.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Meller, R. J.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Templeton, W. P.


Merriman, F. B.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Ropner, Major L.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Rye, F. G.
Thomson, Ht. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Moore-Brabazon, Lieut-Col. J. T. C.
Salmon, Major I.
Tinne, J. A.


Nelson, Sir Frank
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn.W.G.(Ptrs'ld.)
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Ward, Lt.-Col.A.L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Nuttall, Ellis
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Oakley, T.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Savery, S. S.
Wells, S. R.


Pennefather, Sir John
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple


Penny, Frederick George
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A.D. Mcl.(Renfrew,W.)
Williams. Herbert G. (Reading)


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Perring, Sir William George
Shepperson, E. W.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Withers, John James


Pilcher, G.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Womersley, W. J.


Power, Sir John Cecil
Smithers, Waldron
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge& Hyde)


Pownall, Sir Assheton
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Preston, William
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Price, Major C. W. M.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)



Raine, Sir Walter
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Ramsden, E.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Major The Marquess of Titchfield


Rawson, Sir Cooper
Storry-Deans, R.
and Sir Victor Warrender.


NOES


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hayday, Arthur
Rose, Frank H.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hayes, John Henry
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Ammon, Charles George
Hirst, G. H.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Scurr, John


Baker, Walter
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Barr, J.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keightey)


Batey, Joseph
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Kelly, W. T.
Stamford, T. W.


Briant, Frank
Kennedy, T.
Stephen, Campbell


Broad, F. A.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Bromfield, William
Lansbury, George
Strauss, E. A.


Bromley, J.
Lawrence, Susan
Sullivan, J


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Lawson, John James
Sutton, J. E.


Buchanan, G.
Lee, F.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Lindley, F. W.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Cape, Thomas
Lowth, T.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)


Charleton, H. C.
Lunn, William
Tinker, John Joseph


Cluse, W. S.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Tomlinson, R. P.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Townend, A. E.


Connolly, M.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. O. P


Cove, W. G.
March, S.
Viant, S. P.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Maxton, James
Wallhead, Richard C.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Montague, Frederick
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Dalton, Hugh
Morris, R. H.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Day, Harry
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wellock, Wilfred


Dennison, R.
Murnin, H.
Welsh, J. C.


Duncan, C.
Naylor, T. E.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Dunnico, H.
Oliver, George Harold
Whiteley, W.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh univer.)
Owen, Major G.
Wiggins, William Martin


Fenby, T. D.
Palin, John Henry
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Paling, W.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Gibbins, Joseph
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Gosling, Harry
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wilson. R. J. (Jarrow)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wright, W.


Groves, T.
Potts, John S.



Grundy, T. W.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Riley, Ben
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. A. Barnes.


Hardie, George D.
Ritson, J.



Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

Supply accordingly considered in Committee.

[Captain FITZROY in the Chair.]

NUMBER OF AIR FORCE.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a number of Air Forces, not exceeding 32,500, all ranks, be maintained for

the Service of the United Kingdom at home and abroad, exclusive of those serving in India, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1929."

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move, to reduce the Vote by 100 men.
I move this Amendment in order to call attention to a number of scandalous doings of the Air Minister. In spite
of this being the opening year of the air age, there is not a single municipal aerodrome in Great Britain. There is not an Air Force specially provided by any great city, and yet the Air Minister has not expressed his regret at this fact. It is obvious that great cities like Birmingham, Leeds, Manchester—[HON. MEMBERS: "And Hull!"]—the Humber would make a good seaplane base, and I hope that the Schneider Cup race will take place there next year. The great cities I have mentioned ought to have bought land at agricultural prices in order to earmark such land for civil aviation as has been done in Germany, America, Italy and in France. We are very much behind other nations in civil aviation. As far as I can make out, the Minister is content with this state of affairs and as long as he gets a few more additional squadrons he is quite happy. He is doing nothing to educate and encourage our great municipalities to set aerodromes before the available land is built over. In aviation, it is necessary to look ahead, and that is the one thing which this Government cannot do. That is my first complaint. The second is in regard to a matter which I have mentioned before, and to which the right hon. Gentleman has promised to give attention. The great majority of the Service aerodromes, air stations, hangars, and landing grounds are in the south of England. They are there for purposes of war, and they are not well placed, because, if we lost the first engagement—and I would remind hon. Members that in all wars we always lose the first battle or two——

Colonel APPLIN: We always win the last.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: We may not be able to rely upon that in air warfare. The main aerodromes and landing grounds should be well north of the central line of England. and there the main air bases should be. The right hon. Gentleman has agreed with me about this before, and has said that it would receive attention. What should be done is to establish temporary landing grounds in the South, while the main air arsenals, if I may use that term, should be in the North. A glance at the map showing the distribution of air stations in England will show that they are all clustered
around London, and the first objective of an active and enterprising enemy would be to bomb them to pieces. [Interruption.] It is far more important to knock out the Air Force, and then it would not be necessary to bomb London. The hon. Gentleman who interrupts me has forgotten the elements of strategy that he picked up during the War. The first element is that your first objective should be the armed forces of your enemy, and then you can bring pressure to bear upon him afterwards, and I hope that the hon. and gallant Member from Ireland, who is a natural-born strategist, as all Irishmen are, will vote for my Amendment this evening. This distribution of the assembly or mobilisation stations is wrong. They are too exposed, and should be further inland. I have drawn attention to this matter before, and the right hon. Gentleman has always looked very wise and secretive, and has always agreed with me and said that the matter would have attention, but nothing has happened.
The hon. and gallant Member for Chatham (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) made a speech earlier in the evening in which he said that what we needed to-day was the freedom of the air, and he quoted the case of Persia. I will not say anything more about that, except that, as far as I gather, the real reason for this deadlock with Persia is because a German-Russian company put up a civilian aerodrome at Teheran, and asked leave to run to Bagdad, and, for some unknown reason, our ever-wise Government refused. [Interruption.] Persia is not under the Soviet at all, but this German company with Russian capital wanted to run to Bagdad, and I should have thought that we would have jumped at the chance and asked for reciprocal arrangements, so that we could extend our influence. Because we did not do that, and because of other differences between the Foreign Secretary and the Persian Government, this vital link on our air route to India is being held up. I agree that it is absurd that we in Iraq should prevent these people from flying to Bagdad, while the Persians prevent us from flying over their territory to India. Certainly, the freedom of the air is required.
There is, however, a far more serious example than that. In 1923 we organized
an air line from London to Prague, and we have been held up by the refusal of the Germans to allow us to fly over their territory, because they had certain grievances as to the application of the Air Clause of the Treaty of Versailles. For five years we have allowed ourselves to be slapped in the face, figuratively speaking, by the German Government, British aeroplanes have been all ready to go to Prague, and the Czechoslovakian Government has been anxious for the establishment of this service, but it has been prevented and held up by the Germans, who years ago allowed the French the fullest facilities. I can only put this down to lack of interest in the Foreign Office, and the responsibility for that lies on the right hon. Gentleman. He is a very influential, popular and persuasive member of the Government. Why does he not energise about it? The two right hon. Barenets were back benchers with me in the Coalition Government, and I always looked upon them as most promising young Tories. Immediately they got into office the blight of Tory inaction descended upon them. I do not mind reaction so much. It is Tory inaction that I object to. The case of this air route is very scandalous. Have we any intention to operate this very important air route through Central Europe? There are members of the Commercial Committee who know that Czechoslovakia is a very important market for our goods, and it is most important that we should establish this route. For five years we have been held up in this puerile way simply through lack of push and go on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. It is his business, because the Foreign Secretary is taken up with the affairs of China and the United States and the wonderful Council of Geneva and so on. He needs pushing. He has the whole world to survey, but the right hon. Gentleman has the particular responsibility for the furthering of British aviation enterprise. [Interruption.] I dare say that is the ultimate destination of the hon. Member opposite.
I now want to say a word about Iraq, and I speak most seriously to my right hon. Friend. I do not like the communiqués that appear in the papers. Apparently, there is no holy war, but I do not like these alarmist bulletins. I
did not like the speech of the Under-Secretary a few minutes ago when he spoke of preventing the slaughtering of women and children of the tribes on our side of the frontier. Is he aware that in the ordinary desert warfare, camel raiding expeditions, women and children are not killed? That is a rule of Bedouin warfare. The raiding of each other's territories is the national sport of that part of the country. When I was in Palestine a year ago, I crossed over to Transjordania, and there met a delightful old chief who explained to me the cause of the trouble. He had been engaged in camel raids. He said, "It is all very well. We have nothing else to do." He was a man of 60, and from his youth upwards he had been brought up every year or two to organise a raid to take camels from neighbouring tribes. A few shots were fired, and occasionally someone was killed and blood money would have to be paid. But the raids are not serious, and the women and children are never touched. The Under-Secretary of State for India has ridden on these raids, except that the Turks were the objective. The Turks aroused every Arab at the beginning of the campaign by sacking a town and killing women and children. I am sorry to say we are in danger of emulating the Turk in this matter.
The complaint made, according to the advices we get in the English newspapers, these particular raids started with strikes on our side of the frontier, and that the Wahabi raids were retaliations. In any case, if we bomb their encampments and kill their women, that arouses a blood fend, and these men are by a code of honour bound to try and avenge these losses. We must be extremely careful not to take all our statements from one side only, namely, the native Government of Iraq, who for dynastic and religions reasons do not love the Wahabi. When the Wahabis have come with their flocks to wells which they have been in the habit of using for 100 years they have found a post put down with native levies who have refused to let them come to the wells. That, very naturally, leads to fighting. It shows the extreme need of exercising care in the defence of Iraq. Has the right hon. Gentleman the assistance of political officers? Are political officers there who know the people and
speak their language? If they are not, I do not think that it is fair to put the onus of the decisions on the Air Marshal in Command in Iraq unless he is properly advised on the political side. Above all, I do not want to see our Air Force in Iraq made the mere tool of the Government of Bagdad either in connection with the non-payment of taxes or the carrying of bloody reprisals into the camps of those tribes who engage in the national sport of camel raiding.
As if this was not sufficient, we have had further bombing against the town of Kataba carried out from the territory of the Aden Protectorate in the Yemen. At Question Time to-day we were told that 48 hours' notice were given and the town was bombed by aeroplanes because there had been a quarrel between Imam and some proteges of ours and we had taken the side of our proteges and had bombed one of these towns. I am not sure that is quite the best way of spreading the blessings of civilisation in the desert. I hope that it is not resorted to except in the very last possible resort. I will only ask the House to remember the effects of the first German air raids on this country. They were of no military effect whatever. No military damage was done, but innocent people were killed, civilian dwellings were destroyed, and there was a spirit aroused among our people which was worth many divisions of volunteers for our Army and which certainly embittered the whole national outlook towards the War. There is not much difference between the feelings of an Englishman when his house is bombed by a German Zeppelin, and the feelings of an Arab when his encampment or stone house is bombed by a British aeroplane. I do hope that the air arm in the desert will be used with the greatest possible restraint.
I want to speak on one further matter, and that is the action taken last year, and I suppose will be taken this year, although I hope it will not, by the right hon. Gentleman in regard to school children in London and the Home Counties and the Hendon air display. I do not want to be misunderstood. Parents took their children to see the raiding and bombing of a dummy village to pieces by bombs from the air. That is the private concern of the family; but I do not think it is quite playing the game for
the Minister to send a circular to the education authorities of Greater London and the Home Counties inviting them to organise school treats to be admitted gratis to the dress rehearsal of the Hendon air display, and to see the shooting down of kite balloons, attacks by the aeroplanes, the bombing of native villages from the air, and so on. If the parents take their children, that is a matter for the individual conscience, but if you are deliberately to go out of your way to organise school treats you will lay yourselves open to the suspicion that you are trying to inure the young mind to fighting in the air, and that it is part of a deliberate propaganda in which all the Fighting Services are engaged, to counteract the pacifist tendency that has resulted from the War. I would like a reply from the right hon. Gentleman as to whether these glorified school treats are to be organised this year for the Hendon air display.
I notice that the major part of the programme which has been arranged for our distinguished visitor the King of Afghanistan consists of reviews of troops, mimic battles with tanks, a display of our mechanised section of the Army, and the Grand Fleet going to sea to carry out heavy gun firing. His Majesty is to go down in a submarine to fire a torpedo, and finally, there is to be the usual display by the Royal Air Force with, I presume, mimic combats in the air.
Here we have a very welcome visit from a great Mohammedan ruler, and we show him the results of nearly 2,000 years of Christian culture and civilisation. What sort of impression will he take away? Is this really the best way of impressing an oriental potentate with our advance, our progress, our civilisation, our learning and our culture? Battleships engaged in big gun practice, tanks in mechanised warfare, and a mimic battle display by the Air Force. I admit that it will be a spectacular display by the right hon. Gentleman's aeroplanes. Is the object to hawk for orders for machines? I hardly think that can be the object. I suppose it is simply a matter of habit. We became Prussianised during the War and we have not yet lost our Prussian ideas. Whenever the ex-Kaiser wanted to do great honour to a visiting sovereign he staged a tremendous parade of troops and we are doing the same thing.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: The German Republic have done it.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Yes, the German Republic had a display of troops, and more the pity. Italy had the same sort of thing. But this is peace-loving England. We are not as these militarist nations on the Continent. The Under-Secretary told us that we are the most peaceful and most disarming of all peoples. The fact that the Germans and the Italians do this sort of thing is no excuse why we should do it. I would much rather that the welcome to this Sovereign, whose visit I naturally welcome, had taken a more peaceful form. The right hon. Gentleman talks peace, but he acts war. He increases armaments, engages in this subtle and despicable propaganda for school children; he is always ready to lend his airmen and airplanes for the making of war films at any time—the Air Force has become a film super—and it is all part of a deliberate attempt to counteract any peace propaganda that has been possible during the past few years. It is deliberately done by the party opposite and the heads of the Fighting Services; and the heads of the Air Service are not at all behind. It is most unsatisfactory, most disappointing, and altogether wrong. It is not conducive to the peace of the world and, therefore, I propose to reduce the Vote by 100 men.

Sir S. HOARE: While I was speaking this afternoon a very terrible tragedy took place in the Air Force. I was describing to the House the efforts we were making to win the World's record speed, and I was telling the House that the experiments were actually taking place in the Solent. Little did I know that at that very moment the gallant officer who had been selected to make the attempt had lost his life, that his machine had crashed from the air, and that he had fallen with it into the sea. Let us turn aside before I deal with the questions which have been raised in this Debate to offer our sympathy to his family, and pay a tribute of respect to one of the finest officers in the Force, a young man with an unrivalled record who might in the ordinary course have reached the highest post in his great profession. I am afraid the way of progress is strewn with sacrifices of this kind, none the less regrettable, and particularly
when they happen in the dramatic manner in which this tragedy took place this afternoon.
I pass with these few sentences to the many questions which have been raised in the course of the Debate. In my experience I do not think we have ever had so interesting a discussion, and one which has raised so many different questions. Indeed, if I dealt at length, as they deserve, with the many questions that have been raised, I should be making an undue call on the time of the House at a very late hour. I shall therefore try to confine myself to the main issues which have been raised, and if I pass over any of the smaller details it will not be because I have not an answer ready, but because it may be for the convenience of the House that I should deal with them at some earlier hour, when the Debate is resumed on the Report stage next week.
I will begin with the last speech that has been made—the second speech made by the hon. and gallant Member for Centrad Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). During the course of the afternoon we have had the pleasure—not, perhaps, a unique pleasure—of listening to the hon. and gallant Member twice on a single day. In the first of his speeches he was kind enough to say that I ought to be impeached. He criticised me in so kindly a fashion that I say to him that, if and when the time does come for my impeachment, I do not think the hon. and gallant Member will be my judge. But, as the Debate went on, the hon. and gallant Member became somewhat more lenient, and in the second of his speeches he said that what I needed was not so much impeachment as greater energy in the conduct of the affairs of the Air Ministry. He quoted one or two instances to show what he claims to be the want of energy that I have displayed in dealing with this or that urgent question. He began with the question of municipal aerodromes. Will he help me to induce local authorities, over whom I have no authority whatever, to provide municipal aerodromes? I have been trying to induce them to provide such aerodromes for years, not, so far, with very great success. Let the hon. and gallant Member, with his great ability and energy, assist me in this effort, and let him make a beginning with the municipality of Hull.
Then the hon. and gallant Member went on to say that our Air stations, from the point of view of strategy, were not well placed. All I can say is that we have selected the sites after the most careful consideration of the strategical interests involved, and that, while on the one hand it is obviously advantageous to have one's aerodromes as far from the point of danger as possible, on the other hand it is necessary to have them sufficiently near any possible scene of operations to make your machines and your personnel available in time of national emergency. We believe that we have held the balance between these two needs, and, whilst many of our fighting units are in the South of England, we are gradually bringing the air bases and arsenals out of the range of the coast.
The hon. and gallant Member went on to criticise our attitude in the matter of international agreements. He referred to the case of Persia. He gave a reason, an incorrect reason, for the fact that we have not been able to obtain facilities for the Persian section of the Indian air route. I am sure our failure has not been for want of trying. I can assure him also that the reason he assigned for it—namely, the desire of a German company to fly to Bagdad—had, so far as my information went, nothing whatever to do with the refusal of the Persian Government.
Then he quoted the case of the projected air route to Prague. There again we have been constantly trying to inaugurate a service between London and Prague, and I can tell him that the difficulty at present is not any difficulty raised by the German Government. I was hopeful that might now be surmounted, but the difficulty is a money difficulty—the difficulty of providing subsidies for the service. I assure him that the failure to start this route has in no way been connected with any want of desire on our part or any want of energy in pressing that desire into effect. Then he went on to criticise the Government for the manner in which they are carrying out the present military operations in the South of Iraq, and during his observations he made what seemed to me to be one very wise remark. He said to me, "Do not take your information
from one side only." I suggest that he should himself follow that advice and that he should not assume that the alarmist reports which have been arriving in this country from Basra and Mecca and other centres in the Middle East necessarily give a correct view of the situation. I am not going to claim that the situation is without its anxieties. No situation can be without its anxieties when we are faced with the problem of defending a desert frontier of so many hundreds of miles. I can tell him that the alarmist reports are so far at any rate without foundation. We are not at war with Ibn Saud, and I hope we shall never be at war with him. Ibn Saud is a powerful Arab chief and in years past has been on friendly relations with the British Empire. I hope that friendly relations will long continue. We are engaged, not in war with Ibn Saud, but in the necessary duty of repelling murderous and plundering marauders who have crossed the Iraq frontier. The marauders are of a tribe who have been in open rebellion against Ibn Saud and they did not behave in the manner which the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggested was the usual behaviour of Arab tribes in the matter of raids. These marauders at any rate did not spare women and children. They advanced many miles beyond the Iraq frontier and there was no atrocity which they did not commit, not only against the male population but against the women and children as well. I believe and hope that the forces at our disposal will be sufficient to meet this danger, and that at no very distant date we shall be in as friendly relations with the Government of Nejd as we have been in the past.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: There have been reports of attacks on the Transjordania population, even going so far as to say that Akaba and other places were attacked. Has the right hon. Gentleman any information about that?

Sir S. HOARE: Those reports are equally alarmist: and equally incorrect is the report that the inhabitants of Transjordania or Iraq were the first offenders. As far as I know, there is no case in which the tribes of Iraq or Transjordania have advanced info Wahabi country, unless it be in the last few days in repelling the attacks of the marauders. The attacks were initiated
by the Mutair tribe of Nejd and in no way by the tribes of either Iraq or Transjordania.
The last question he raised was in regard to the Air Pageant. The last thing in the world I wish to do is to encourage militarist opinions in anybody, man, woman or child, but I really think the hon. and gallant Gentleman is a little over-sensitive—I was going to say morbid—when he thinks that attendance at the Air Pageant at Hendon is going to inspire militarist views in anybody's mind. I think the children go there, just as I and other Members go there, to see a very fine display of the best flying in the world, and I do not believe for a moment that any militarist tendencies are encouraged in any way by the attendance of men, women or children at that very fine show. We are following exactly the precedent of the Military Tournament, and, as far as I know, that Tournament has never encouraged militarist views in the mind of anybody. [Interruption.] I wonder if hon. Members have attended the Military Tournament as many times as I have. I remember going there as one of the first shows to which I went as a little boy——

Miss WILKINSON: They have made you a militarist!

Sir S. HOARE: They have made me a very poor militarist, and I certainly would disclaim the epithet that the hon. Lady has just applied to me. I do not believe for a moment that the invitation to children to attend the Air Force display is in any way encouraging militarist views, and I am supported by the fact that, although we have issued invitations to many schools in the past, we have not had a single protest from any local education authority. When we receive protests from local education authorities, then we shall of course give them the attention that is due to them. I pass from the questions raised by the hon. and gallant Member in his last speech to a number of other issues raised during the Debate.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: There is always a tendency when these Debates take place after having got Mr. Speaker out of the Chair, to confuse the two Debates. They are separate Debates, and questions raised in the first Debate cannot be answered in the second.

Sir S. HOARE: I am, of course, entirely within your ruling, and shall follow any decision you might make; but I did ask Mr. Speaker, before he left the Chair, what would be the course of the Debate, and he himself suggested to me that I should deal, on Vote A, which is the general Vote, with certain questions raised in the previous Debate. I shall, however, of course, follow whatever decision you may give on the subject.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That has not been the procedure in the past. It has often been ruled out of order on previous occasions, and I think we had better adhere to that ruling.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On a point of Order. Might I remind you that on Thursday, on the Army Estimates, the Minister for War dealt with one or two matters with which he had not had time to deal in his speech before the Speaker left the Chair, on wide questions of policy?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I believe he dealt with one question, and I was wrong in not calling him to order.

Sir S. HOARE: In view of your decision, I had better delay the answer to the other points raised in the Debate until one or other of the Votes gives an opportunity. If no opportunity is given this evening, I will undertake, so far as I am in order, to answer the question when we resume the Debate on the Report stage.

Question put, "That a number, not exceeding 32,400, all ranks, be maintained for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 75; Noes, 187.

Division No. 31.]
AYES.
[11.42 p.m.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Dalton, Hugh


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Bromfield, William
Day, Harry


Ammon, Charles George
Bromley, J.
Dennison, R.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Duncan, C.


Barnes, A.
Buchanan, G.
Dunnico, H.


Barr, J.
Charleton, H. C.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)


Batey, Joseph
Clowes, S.
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.


Gibbins, Joseph
Lunn, William
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Grundy, T. W.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Stephen, Campbell


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Sullivan, J.


Hardie, George D.
Maxton, James
Sutton, J. E.


Hayday, Arthur
Morris, R. H.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Hirst, G. H.
Murnin, H.
Tinker, John Joseph


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Oliver, George Harold
Townend, A. E.


Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Paling, W.
Viant, S. P.


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Kelly, W. T.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wellock, Wilfred


Kennedy, T.
Potts, John S.
Welsh, J. C.


Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Lansbury, George
Riley, Ben
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Lawrence, Susan
Rose, Frank H.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Lawson, John James
Saklatvala, Shapurji



Lee, F.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Lindley, F. W.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Mr Hayes and Mr. whiteley.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Ford, Sir P. J.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Forrest, W.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Albery, Irving James
Fraser, Captain Ian
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Oakley, T.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Ganzoni, Sir John
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Penny, Frederick George


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Balniel, Lord
Goff, Sir Park
Perring, Sir William George


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Gower, Sir Robert
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Bennett, A. J.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Pilcher, G.


Betterton, Henry B.
Grotrian, H. Brent
Power, Sir John Cecil


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Blundell, F. N.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Preston, William


Boothby, R. J. G.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Price, Major C. W. M.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Raine, Sir Walter


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Hammersley, S. S.
Ramsden, E.


Brass, Captain W.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Harland, A.
Remer, J. R.


Briggs, J. Harold
Harrison, G. J. C.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y,Ch'ts'y)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Haslam, Henry C.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Ropner, Major L.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Salmon, Major I.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Buchan, John
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Burman, J. B.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Campbell, E. T.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Carver, Major W. H.
Hills, Major John Waller
Savery, S. S.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St.Marylebone)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Shepperson, E. W.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Couper, J. B.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Smithers, Waldron


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Crawfurd, H. L.
Iveagh, Countess of
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G.(Westm'eland)


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Lamb, J. Q.
Storry-Deans, R.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Long, Major Eric
Strauss, E. A.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Looker, Herbert William
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Templeton, W. P.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lumley, L. R.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Drewe, C.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Macintyre, Ian
Tinne, J. A.


Ellis, R. G.
McLean, Major A.
Tomlinson, R. P.


England, Colonel A.
Macmillan, Captain H.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Warrender, Sir Victor


Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Margesson, Captain D.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Fenby, T. D.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Wells, S. R.


Fermoy, Lord
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-




Wiggins, William Martin
Womersley, W. J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
Wood, E. (Chester, Staly'b'ge & Hyde)
MajorCope and Major The Marquess of Titchfield.


Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.



Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl




Question put, and agreed to.

PAY, ETC., OF THE AIR FORCE.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £3,401,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Pay, etc., of His Majesty's Air Force at home and abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1929.

WORKS, BUILDINGS, AND LANDS.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £1,700,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Works, Buildings, Repairs, and Lands of the Air Force, including Civilian Staff and other Charges connected therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1929.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I want to raise two points on this Vote. This is a very large sum of money, and I think we ought to scrutinize it rather carefully. The first point is with regard to the Cadet College at Cranwell to which the Minister referred earlier in the Debate. There is an item for £260,000. This is a provisional estimate, and I am told that the final amount is more likely to be £500,000. I am informed that the Treasury have to find this amount and that when the question went to the Chancellor of the Exchequer he decided that it must be a grandiose building for these cadets. I agree that you cannot keep these young men indefinitely in huts, but I should have thought that it would have been quicker and cheaper to have taken over one of the large empty mansions in this country as was done in the case of the new public school at Stowe. There are other private houses which the owners cannot keep up, and for 116 cadets you could easily have converted one of these large houses in a suitable locality, with a large surrounding park which would make a landing ground. There are plenty of these buildings which have been modernised, with central heating and electric light, and which, owing to the high taxation imposed by successive Conservative and Coalition Governments, the owners, who are impoverished, cannot keep up. The class which has

been most affected has been pathetic in their fidelity to the Conservative party which has ruined them. I should have thought that the Minister could have got hold of one of these country houses for very much less than £260,000. In fact, a great many could probably be taken as a gift if only the taxes and rates were paid by the Government. You would then have got a suitable building. If Stowe could be converted for the sons and parents who are able to pay public school fees, surely another of the large country houses could have been adapted for the Royal Air Force.

I resent this payment of £260,000 for another reason and that is that the Home Secretary the other day had to go on his knees and hold out his hat to some philanthropic person, because he had not enough Borstal accommodation. Young offenders have to be sent to prison because there is no Borstal Institute for them. They have to go into prison surroundings where there is no chance in many cases of reforming them. The Home Secretary cannot afford £100,000 for a Borstal Institute, but £260,000 can be expended on a Cadet College for the Royal Air Force. I think my plan would have been very much cheaper, and I would like to know why it was not adopted.

The other point is this. I would draw the attention of the Committee to page 48 of these Estimates where they will see that nearly £500,000 is to be expended in the construction of art air station at Singapore. I always thought it curious that there was no provision for an air force at Singapore. This cost of £500,000 gives some indication of what that naval base will cost in the end. Besides this amount, there is an undisclosed sum for fortifications. This is being done at the Singapore Base in connection with a scheme which the Labour Government dropped, and which the present Government are now continuing. We have been invited by the United States and Japan to enter into a treaty outlawing war between one another, and, if we joined in that treaty, we should not need the Singapore Base at all.

Sir S. HOARE: In my speech delivered earlier in the afternoon, I pointed out that this item of expenditure was urgently required. The permanent officers of the Air Force are living in very small huts. They require better accommodation, and we require this item as additional expenditure. We are providing £10,000 for this purpose, and hon. Members will have an opportunity of criticising this item in future years as the expenditure develops

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: It will be too late then, because the money will have been spent.

Sir S. HOARE: The hon. and gallant Member asked why we had not bought a large country house to provide the extra accommodation needed for the cadets. The reason is that Cranwell is eminently suited for our purposes. It contains the finest aerodrome in the country, and the alternative suggested by the hon. and gallant Member would have been much less efficient. I do not propose at this period of the evening to embark upon a discussion as to whether the Government were wise in their decision to develop the Singapore base, but, assuming that we were right, we certainly require an aerodrome at Singapore.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: How many squadrons are you providing for?

Sir S. HOARE: I cannot give an answer to that question, because we have not decided yet whether we shall require a large or a small aerodrome. We are now asking the Committee to make a small provision for this purpose.

12.0 m.

Miss WILKINSON: I hoped another Member of my party would have raised the matter of the provision that has been made for the personnel engaged in constructing this station at Singapore. A Member of my party has recently returned from there, and has stated at a meeting that the conditions for the workers, both European and native, are extraordinarily bad, the sanitary arrangements have practically broken down, there is sickness, and the temporary arrangements that have been made have proved insufficient.

Sir S. HOARE: I have not received any information to that effect, but if the hon. Lady has any particulars I will certainly look into that at once. Obviously, we have an obligation to the workmen and should try to make their conditions as satisfactory as may be.

Mr. CRAWFURD: If we embark on these discussions at a late hour of the night it would be as well to get as much reality in them as possible. I support the right hon. Gentleman in his answer to the hon. and gallant Gentleman's first question, and I want to ask a question about his second. I had experience during the War of an attempt to make use of a building that had been built for a private residence as a training ground for air officers, and I am sure the expense that resulted, because it was not adapted to that use, from the additions and alterations of all kinds that had to be made, was in the long run greater than if a building ad hoe had been erected. I think the right hon. Gentleman was wise in getting a permanent building at Cranwell designed for the purpose for which it is to be used. My question with regard to Singapore is this. Here again it is almost impossible to discuss the question of the Singapore base and the air portion of the equipment without reference to the naval works because many of us who disagree heartily with the setting up of a large naval base might be prepared to go even further than the right hon. Gentleman is proposing with regard to the aerodrome. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who has put these two questions earlier in the evening was taking the right hon. Gentleman to task because he was concentrating squadrons of aeroplanes for defence work instead of placing them where our shipping might be attacked in foreign waters. He instanced the Mediterranean, but it applies to far more distant parts of the world, and it may well be that we should want additional air accommodation. Is the air establishment which he contemplates at Singapore of a nature that is dependent upon large ships or is any part of it an independent air force that could be carried on without the use of large aeroplane carriers at sea?

Sir S. HOARE: The short answer is, that we should require the air base for both purposes.

QUARTERING, STORES (EXCEPT TECHNICAL), SUPPLIES, AND TRANSPORT.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £1,711,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Quartering, Stores (except Technical), Supplies, and Transport of the Air Force, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1929.

TECHNICAL AND WARLIKE STORES (INCLUDING EXPERIMENTAL AND RESEARCH SERVICES).

Motion made, and Question proposed.
That a sum not exceeding £6,567,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Technical and Warlike Stores of the Air Force (including Experimental and Research Services), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1929.

Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONE rose——

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I had already collected the voices before I observed the hon. Member.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report the Resolutions to the House."

Mr. MALONE: On a point of Order. I was expecting the Minister was going to reply to questions that had been put. I only rose to ask whether he intended doing so.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am sorry. I did not see the hon. Member. I had collected the voices.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

PROTECTION OF LAPWINGS BILL [Lords].

Considered in Committee.

[Captain FITZROY in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Protection of Lapwings.)

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move, in page 1, line 7, to leave out the word "fourteenth," and to insert instead thereof the word "first."

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Vivian Henderson): It may
save the time of the Committee if I explain that I am prepared to accept broadly this Amendment and the one that follows it.

Major HILLS: I think 14th March is too early a date. It could be put a good deal later than that.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is mistaken. The consumption of the egg is all the year round. This is only the consumption of the carcase.

Major HILLS: I understand the hon. and gallant Gentleman now wants to protect the bird for the whole year round.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The position is this. The egg is protected all the year round. That is the Government's own Measure. The Bill says 14th March and the Amendment is to make it 1st March. There are two reasons for that. One is the natural reason and the other is because it is difficult to remember all these odd dates.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 1, line 8, leave out the word "eleventh," and insert instead thereof the word "thirty-first."—[Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy.]

Sir V. HENDERSON: I beg to move, in page one, line 19, at the end, to add the words:
(3) In this Act the expression 'lapwing' means the bird commonly called the lapwing, green plover, or peewit.
This is a definition Clause which my right hon. Friend said he would try and introduce on the Committee stage.

Mr. MAXTON: Do I understand the hon. Gentleman is moving "That the Clause stand part of the Bill"? My point comes before that.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is now moving the Amendment which stands in his name. Perhaps he might be allowed to do that, and then the Debate can proceed upon it.

Sir V. HENDERSON: This is the Amendment which my right hon. Friend promised to put down on the Paper, and it includes the three terms which are commonly used throughout the country
to define the bird, lapwing—lapwing, green plover or peewit. Perhaps I should explain, as it may save time later on, that the terms "Kentish plover" and "little ringed plover" are outside the Bill altogether, because they are not lapwings, and scientifically they are not of the same family. Therefore, it will not be in order to accept the suggestion made by three hon. Members opposite in a later Amendment as far as terms are concerned. As far as the other two—peesweep and wype—are concerned, these are purely local terms with a local application. If you are going to include terms of that kind, you would be entitled to include the happinch, lappinch, hornpic, horniewink and tieves nicket. It will be quite impossible and will only lead to confusion to include a large number of local names of that kind which have only a local meaning and are not understood in other parts of the country. It is better to include three terms commonly used throughout the country and which are well known, and which will not lead to the same confusion as would result from putting in a large number of purely dialectal terms. Therefore, while I appreciate what the hon. Members suggest, I am afraid I cannot accept a suggestion of that kind. I think that all that is necessary to cover this point is to include the three terms which are defined in this Amendment.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I put in my Amendment the two words which are rejected. Peesweep is not a local term; it is a Scottish word. It is used over a great part of Scotland. Wype is an old English term, and I do not think it is quite accurate to call "wype" a local or parochial term at all. It is a national word. However, I do not want to press that point. With regard to the Kentish plover and the little ringed plover, these are, I admit, different kinds of plovers. They are very rare birds. and I was hoping to get them finally protected. It is always a good thing to prevent a bird from becoming extinct. The Kentish plover is only a cousin of the lapwing, but I should have thought the Under-Secretary would have been prepared to safeguard this very rare bird.

Sir V. HENDERSON: I should be delighted to do so, but it is outside the purview of the Bill.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The other species, the little ringed plover is——

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member had better leave the description of these birds to some other occasion. They are not included in this Bill.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I thought that perhaps you might have turned a blind eye to that point, for the sake of preventing these very rare birds from being exterminated. Perhaps we can hope for another Birds' Protection Bill later.

Mr. MAXTON: I do not think the Under-Secretary is giving an adequate definition by using the three names mentioned in his Amendment. I can see no real objection to accepting our Amendment. If this Bill is to serve any real purpose, the fact that the titles in our Amendment are mere localisms is all the more reason why they should be used. Nobody in my part of the country knows the bird by any other name than that of peesweep. Admittedly that is a corruption of peewit, or perhaps peewit is a corruption of peesweep. I am not sufficiently well informed in the history of the words to know that. If the Bill is to serve as a useful piece of legislation and to be a real check on the depredations amongst these birds and their eggs, and the sale of them, then ordinary persons living in the localities ought to know exactly what is prohibited. To add the names green plover and peewit to that of lapwing is not sufficient. Seeing that the Minister is prepared to go to that extent in extending his definition, I can see no solid reason why he should not add the other localisms which we suggest. I press him to do so.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member wishes to move an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, he can do so.

Mr. BUCHANAN: On a point of Order. Is it not possible to ask the Minister to broaden his Amendment, without our moving an Amendment to the Amendment? The hon. Member for
Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) would be satisfied if the name "Peesweep" were put in the definition.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member can move an Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The name Peesweep is Scottish; it is universal in Scotland. I should have thought the hon. and gallant Member would have recognised, that fact, from his knowledge of Scotland.

Mr. BARR: I never knew this bird by any other name than peesweep, although in Aberdeen one writer of a poem called it the peewit. In my young days we had no other name for it. The Government, I think, might meet us on this point.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after the word "plover." to insert the word "peesweep."

Sir V. HENDERSON: I fully appreciate Scottish sentiment in this matter as I am a Scotsman myself, but it is quite contrary to precedent to put into a Bill what are merely dialectical terms, and if you once start making precedents of this kind you will have to go much further than you desire. Acts of Parliament are printed in one language, English, and if you begin putting in Scottish terms or Welsh terms or Irish terms you will get into difficulties. I do not see any great objection to putting in the word "peesweep," but the other two suggestions are out of order. As to the word "wype," I do not see why we should start printing Acts of Parliament in old English.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.

Proposed words, as amended, there added.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. MAXTON: I had hoped that the Under-Secretary would have given us some explanation of paragraph (b). What is going to happen to an innocent bird nester who might be found with plovers' eggs in his possession but with no intention of using them for commercial purposes. I do not know whether he has discussed this point with the
Secretary of State and whether it is impossible to meet this point. I could not overcome the difficulty myself to the extent of tabling an Amendment.

Sir V. HENDERSON: I think I can explain the position. The point has been discussed with the Home Secretary, and the objections are legal. If you take out the words "found in his possession" and leave the Clause "for sale or offer for sale," it cuts out the wholesale trade, which is a serious matter. In the second place, I understand that legally it would mean that if an inspector went to a retail tradesman and found a case of eggs downstairs he could not take action unless he found the man in the process of selling or offering these eggs for sale. It would enable a coach and four to be driven through the Bill. With regard to the boy, let me draw the attention of the hon. Member to the fact that the Act of 1894 makes it illegal, if the Secretary of State makes an Order, for anybody to take or destroy wild birds' eggs, and in 43 counties an Order is already in force making it illegal to take eggs. The boy would be dealt with, not under this Bill, but under the Act of 1894, and the onus of proof is on the police officer, who would have to prove his case. Unless it was a case where the boy was obviously doing wrong he would get off. The hon. Member is wrong in thinking that this paragraph is attacking the boy or creating a new offence. If we adopted his suggestion we should practically destroy the Bill.

CLAUSE 2.—(Penalties.)

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move, in page 1, to leave out from the word "pounds," in line 23, to the end of the Clause.
The short reason of this Amendment is that the Home Secretary himself realises that such a sentence is unsuitable.

Sir V. HENDERSON: I am prepared to accept this Amendment because neither in the Act of 1880 nor in the Act of 1894 is there any penalty of imprisonment. It is, therefore, reasonable that there should not be a new penalty of that kind.

Mr. BUCHANAN: What happens in the case of a person unable to pay the fine?

Sir V. HENDERSON: This Bill, as I think the hon. Member will realise, is aimed at the retail and wholesale trades, and I have no reason to suppose they will not be able to pay the fine.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 3.—(Application.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Did I understand that the Government of Northern Ireland are passing similar legislation?

Sir V. HENDERSON: They are empowered to do so. This is not legislation we are entitled to pass for Northern Ireland.

Clause 4 (Short Title) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended considered; read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

SUPERANNUATION (DIPLOMATIC SERVICE) [MONEY].

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [8th March],
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the Resolution, 'That it is expedient to provide for the application to persons in the Diplomatic Service of the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1919, and to authorise in the case of such persons the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of allowances and gratuities under those Acts as so applied'.

Question again proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. MAXTON: There are several Members on these benches who want some explanation of this particular Resolution before they agree to this money being voted. What with the action of the Government and the loss of privileges in one way or another, it is all very difficult. There is a great deal being done to reduce in this or that direction social services that at present tend to make the lot of the working classes easier, and we are rather disturbed when the Government come forward at the
same time that these reductions in working-class standards of life are in the air with a proposal still further to make easy the lot of what one may already rightly regard as a very favoured class of the community and even as a very favoured class of the Civil Service. As I understand it, they are not recruited as in the ordinary Civil Service by open competitive examination, but are recruited by nomination and by patronage.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): They have to pass examinations.

Mr. MAXTON: I am not denying that they have an examination to pass, but, unless my own recollection is very much at fault, the Diplomatic Service is not recruited by open competitive examination, but by limited examination after nomination. The matter is rather important, and I happen to be specially well-informed on it. It was part of the necessary knowledge of my trade to know what avenues of public service were open to boys leaving school, and my impression is very definite. I do not know of any amendment of the position. While the highest positions in the highest branches of the Civil Service were open to any young man in open examination, the Diplomatic Service was limited to a very small group, who, admittedly, passed an examination, and I think had some special training afterwards, but it was an examination limited to a small group nominated by someone with social or political influence who pushed them if they needed it. I gather that the hon. Gentleman has additional information on this matter, and, if I am still wrong in my assumption, I am willing to be corrected. But I believe my assumption is right, that the Diplomatic Service is recruited more by nomination than by open competition, and that the men who seek admission into the Service must have something like a private income. If that be the case, and if these positions be limited to men who have a special social grade, then presumably they have resources that are not available to the ordinary young man entering the Civil Service in the ordinary course, and I would be very loth to agree to the voting of a large sum of public money to a group of men who start off in a career which has been specially prepared for them and who
throughout their period of public service are supported by additional private resources and are in enjoyment of very handsome increments, particularly in the higher branches of the Service.
I would be loth, indeed, to agree to vote a large sum of public money to make the lives of these people still better at a time when great economies are taking place both in the wages of the working classes and the small alleviations in their social life. Therefore, I would like a more adequate explanation as to the reasons that make the Government at this particular time—because presumably I shall be told that the whole purpose is to remove an anomaly—give this additional money. I shall be told that these men have been in an unfair position as compared with other branches of the Civil Service, but, if that be so, I want to know why at this very late date the hon. Gentleman comes forward, after alleging the need for national economy, to remove an anomaly which presumably has been in existence a very long time. I do not know any particular reason why this proposal should be brought forward this year any more than at any time during the last 20 or 30 years. I shall be glad to hear the hon. Gentleman's explanations, and I can assure him that I am not approaching the matter in a hostile frame of mind. I am always anxious to see our public servants treated with the utmost fairness, but I do not think that there should be favoured sections, and I have the feeling about the hon. Gentleman and his associates in the Government that, while they are very ready to economise at the expense of the lower-paid people, they can be almost profligate in the way that they are prepared to treat smaller groups. I should like to hear the hon. Gentleman's reasons in support of the Resolution.

Mr. SAMUEL: The object of this Resolution, which is to be put into a Bill, is mainly to place pensionable Diplomatic Servants in the same position as civil servants. As a matter of fact, this step ought to have been taken when the two Services were amalgamated in 1919. Hardship is likely to be caused, and it is to remove that hardship that this Resolution has been moved. I should be out of order in replying to the questions
about the original salaries and the changes in them which are being made. These are outside the scope of the Bill. We do not alter the original salaries. All we do is to put the pensions in the Diplomatic Service into the same position as those of the Civil Service. Very few people are concerned and very little money is at stake. At the end of 10 years, the change will add about 4 per cent., amounting to £2,000 a year.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I rise to oppose this Resolution. I am frankly disappointed with the speech of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. He told us that, if this Resolution was not passed, it would cause hardship, but he never told us where the hardship would be caused. He never told us of a single individual. He made a general statement, and, if we were making it on this side of the House on behalf of some poor person, we should have to produce the person and tell the House all about him. But because the hon. Gentleman comes and says it, we are asked to believe it is hardship when he says it in a general fashion. He does not tell us the income that these people possess, or how much they are losing. All he says is that they are in receipt of comparatively good incomes. He treats the House with contempt, and he treats the one or two Members who raise it with contempt, and he says nothing about any hardship. He simply says it is hardship, but he does not mention the facts that ought to be placed before this House, namely, what the persons are earning at this moment. Before he can prove hardship he ought to say what the salaries are at the moment or the salaries prior to retirement, what is the amount of pension they are getting before this Act starts to operate, and what age they get them. These three facts we ought to know, and in no case has the Financial Secretary to the Treasury treated this House to even a tenth part of what the Minister of Labour would be asked to do if we were bringing in a Bill to increase the unemployment benefit. I am surprised even at my own colleagues on the Front Bench. I have seen one colleague there who, some time ago, was associated with us, quite rightly, against Cabinet Ministers taking salaries of a similar kind.
Here are men getting £1,700 a year, not for salary but for retiring allowance, and
we are asked to sit quietly and tamely by while this country is led to believe that we are poor. The hon. Member says it might have been done any time within the last nine years. The hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Harmsworth) has said that this is the worst year of any of the nine years. He is one of the leaders of the economy group, and it is not long since he said that this year, from the point of view of financial stringency, was the worst. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury was chosen for his post because he was supposed to be keener on economy than any member of his party. He was the new broom, and yet this is the second occasion that he has come forward with a proposal of this sort. Not long ago it was the Irish Loyalists, and this time it is an increase for diplomatic servants. Yet this year is admitted to be one of the greatest stringency following the industrial upheaval and following the Chinese question. The hon. Gentleman says it will only cost in 10 years £2,000, but he does not give the figure it will cost between this and 10 years. We are always asked to believe it is only £2,000 if it is for well-to-do people. If you capitalise £2,000, it is enough to keep an unemployed family as long as they live in a state of comparative comfort. Take what he puts on an old age pension—an annuity value. He charges 5 per cent. on £300 and 10 per cent. on the remainder. Put it on that value, and it will keep a working-class family. You talk about corruption, but suppose this had been done at Mile End or Chester-le-Street or Bedwellty! The friends of the privileged class are here voting money for their own friends. This is one of the perquisites that the rich get; the sons who cannot get earldoms themselves get another job handed to them. This is one of the things that we are told West Ham is becoming shocked over, and the Opposition is being asked to sit tamely by and let it go. [An HON. MEMBER: "Where are they? They have gone home!"] The reason you do not go home is because you are the patient oxen.

Mr. MAXTON: Tethered goats.

Mr. BUCHANAN: And yet we are asked to vote this sum to give to the friends of the Government of the day.
The thing is shocking. Not long ago the Government imposed tremendous restrictions on the unemployment and on the poor people in receipt of poor Law relief, and yet they have the cheek and impertinence to grant this sum to their political friends. It is jobbery of the worst kind.

Mr. TINKER: There are one or two points that I should like to have explained. The present cost of Diplomatic pensions is about £50,000 per annum, and I should like to know how many persons that covers. There are to be increases of 23 per cent. in the first year, falling to 11 per cent. in the fifth year, and 6 per cent. in the tenth year, and, finally, about 4 per cent. Is that an average of £.2,000 per annum covering the whole of the 10 years? On the general proposition, I agree that this is a serious matter from our point of view. One class of the community is being very badly treated—those people who come under what is called the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Scheme. Many people cannot have the pension, and those who do get it have to be 65 years of age. There is no question of anyone getting it before that age, and yet in this proposal, if certain things happen, these people can have it at 60 years of age. If one class of the community are giving of their best and are prevented from being in employment at 65 years of age, how is it that they cannot get pensions if they are thrown out of employment before that time, while we are giving it under this scheme, although we know that these people are not in need of money like the working-class people I am speaking about? It is on these grounds that we raise our voice of protest. Although I am quite loyal to my people on the Front Bench, I think they have made a mistake in not challenging the Government and taking a Division on this point. We ought to lodge a protest on every occasion of this kind, and bring to notice the difference in conditions between one class of persons and another. On this occasion, if my hon. Friends will force a Division, I will certainly go with them into the Lobby to bring to notice a very bad state of affairs

Mr. MAXTON rose——

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): The hon. Gentleman has exhausted his right to speak.

Mr. MAXTON: Surely it is within my right to ask a question.

Mr. DEPUTY- SPEAKER: The hon. Member has exhausted his right to speak.

Mr. BUCHANAN: On a point of Order. Is it not in order for a Member to ask your leave to speak again?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Certainly he can.

Mr. MAXTON: I intended, with your permission, to ask the hon. Gentleman if he will reply to the question that

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel and Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson.

SUPERANNUATION (DIPLOMATIC SERVICE) BILL,

"to amend the law with respect to the pensions of persons in the Diplomatic Service," presented accordingly, and

I put in my previous speech. Is not this Service recruited by limited competition after nomination?

Mr. TINKER: I think the Minister might answer my question.

Mr. SAMUEL: If the House will allow me—

HON. MEMBERS: Object!

Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 107; Noes, 13.

Division No. 32.]
AYES.
[12.54 a.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Gower, Sir Robert
Power, Sir John Cecil


Albery, Irving James
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Price, Major C. W. M.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Raine, Sir Walter


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Ramsden, E.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Hammersley, S. S.
Remer, J. R.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Richardson, sir P. W.(Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Balniel, Lord
Harland, A.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Harrison, G, J. C.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Betterton, Henry B.
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Boothby, R. J. G.
Hann, Sir Sydney H.
Savery, S. S.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl (Renfrew,W)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks. W.R., Sowerby)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hills, Major John Waller
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Buchan, John
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Smithers, Waldron


Burman, J. B.
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Cope, Major William
Lamb, J. Q.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G.(Westm'eland)


Couper, J. B.
Long, Major Eric
Storry-Deans, R.


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Scott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)
Lumley, L. R.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Macintyre, Ian
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
McLean, Major A.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset,Yeovil)
Macmillan Captain H.
Warrender, Sir victor


Dawson, Sir Philip
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Drewe, C.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Wells, S. R.


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Margesson, Captain D.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Ellis, R. G.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Everard, W. Lindsay
Oakley, T.
Womersley, W. J.


Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Wood, E. (Chester, Staly'd'ge & Hyde)


Ford, Sir P. J.
Penny, Frederick George
Wragg, Herbert


Fraser, Captain Ian
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)



Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Captain Bowyer and Major the


Goff, Sir Park
Pilcher, G.
Marquess of Titchfield.




NOES.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Lawrence, Susan
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Barr, J.
Lawson, John James
Stephen, Campbell


Charleton, H. C.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Wellock, Wilfred


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Maxton, James



Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Tinker and Mr. Buchanan.

read the First time; to be read a Second time this day, and to be printed. [Bill 61.]

ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACTS.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1926, and
confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of parts of the rural districts of Basingstoke, Kingsclere, and Whitchurch, in the county of Southampton, which was presented on the 7th day of February, 1928, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1926, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the rural district of East and West Flegg and parts of the rural districts of Blofield, Loddon, and Clavering and Smallburgh, in the county of Norfolk, and parts of the rural districts of Mutford and Lothingland and Wangford, in the administrative county of East Suffolk, which was presented on the 7th day of February, 1928, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1926, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of part of the rural district of Lichfield, in the county of Stafford, which was presented on the 7th day of February, 1928, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1926, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of parts of the rural districts of Reigate and Dorking, in the county of Surrey, which was presented on the 7th day of February, 1928, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1926, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban district of Epping and
part of the rural district of Epping, in the county of Essex, which was presented on the 7th day of February, 1928, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1926, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the undertaking authorised by the Bridge of Allan Electricity Special Order, 1925, and other purposes, which was presented on the 7th day of February, 1928, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1926, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban district of Rugeley and parts of the rural districts of Lichfield and Stafford, in the county of Stafford, which was presented on the 7th day of February, 1928, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1926, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the parish of Lairg, in the county of Sutherland, which was presented on the 7th day of February, 1928, be approved."—[Colonel Ashley.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the clock upon Monday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at One Minute after One o'Clock.